[FRC Blog]2017 Updates

[Jessica Boucher]

Originally Posted by Zebra_Fact_Man

AND there shouldn't be as extensive of a field reset)

Just a quick thing here - field staff size depends on the game, not the divisions. Divisions are merely the multiplier.

It's difficult to come to the correct amount of volunteers for the Champs fields during the season - different regions run leaner than others, and the decision for the field staff size comes early, usually in week 1 or 2, so we can give food counts to HQ.

Although I personally prefer to run leaner events (back in the early 00s I was challenged - and succeeded - to run entire regionals with double digit volunteers), the final number tends to skew to the higher side to give comfort to the regions who run larger and to cover drop outs.

Stronghold was the first year we had more than 100 volunteer slots on reset alone (14 reset slots / field, if you're curious). This doesn't count DCs, or any one else on the field. Additionally, a volunteer slot does not equal a person, as we have many partial-weekend volunteers, so we're probably closer to the 150 range in terms of actual people needed for the entire event.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Cory

I'd gladly trade 2 matches for 25% deeper divisions.

I don't even mind having few matches at the Championship. More time to get around and see cool robots/people!

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by sdangelo

As of last year's rules, this means the finalist alliance captain for every regional will be going to World. I think this is going to have huge implications on strategy.

Imaginary scenario: first 4 teams at an event really are the best 4 teams, in that order. 1 picks 2. 3 asks 4. Does 4 accept? Do they have a better chance at beating out 3 with their own alliance than taking down 1 & 2 with 3?

Someone mentioned intentionally considering this in the "(Seemingly) Irrational alliance selection decisions" thread, but now it will be happening with every pick at every regional. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

This is and the other scenario where teams try to not be on alliance 4,5, or 8(alliances that have to face alliance 1 to get to the finals) are why I would like to see wildcards distributed based on the district ranking system.

[jajabinx124]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

This is and the other scenario where teams try to not be on alliance 4,5, or 8(alliances that have to face alliance 1 to get to the finals) are why I would like to see wildcards distributed based on the district ranking system.

Agreed, but that's assuming the seeding bracket is the same as it has been the past couple of years. (excluding recycle rush that is)

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by jajabinx124

Agreed, but that's assuming the seeding bracket is the same as it has been the past couple of years. (excluding recycle rush that is)

That's true. It could even very well be 6 alliances for each division/event. In this case the best* 2 alliances would generally find themselves in the finals.

[Big Ideas]

6 divisions -good.

Round Robin --OK. May make it harder for a lower seed to upset a higher seed by fluke or exceptional 2 match effort.

Division pairs--NO. Should judge each of the 6 divisions separately. "Spread the wealth" a bit. Compatible with the round robin playoff structure. I believe it will be EASIER on the judges. The Pairings are very artificial and for judged awards only so they don't make any sense to me. Yes it will cost a few more medals.

Wild cards-THANKS. I wonder if there would be a positive effect by spreading wildcards down the Alliance captains in order after the Finalist teams.

[Drakxii]

Subdivisons - Wish they would do the reverse, matching up subdivisions for alliance section but having awards based on subdivisions.

Wildcards - So... less wait-list slots available for mid-level teams now and more 23rd/24th ranked teams getting to worlds?

[Sperkowsky]

It really stinks that they are getting rid of a lot of north Champs wait list spots. As a team who has 8 waitlist 'tokens' next year our shot at Champs through the waitlist is much much smaller now.

If the goal is really to have more new teams come to Champs shouldn't waitlist slots be prioritized over wild cards?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

It really stinks that they are getting rid of a lot of north Champs wait list spots. As a team who has 8 waitlist 'tokens' next year our shot at Champs through the waitlist is much much smaller now.

If the goal is really to have more new teams come to Champs shouldn't waitlist slots be prioritized over wild cards?

No, because they're choosing to stop punishing teams in areas who aren't part of districts but are under represented at Championships due to fewer qualifications available at regional events than they'd get through a district championship.

[Karthik]

In 2013, 96 teams made the elimination rounds at the Championship (4 divisions, 8 alliances per division, 3 teams per alliance).
In 2017, 384 teams will make the elimination rounds at the Championships (2 Championships, 6 divisions per championship, 8 alliances per division, 4 teams per alliance).

In essence, this is the approximate equivalent (384/400) of every team from the 2013 Championship making the elimination rounds. Some people will really like this change, some will really dislike this change. An interesting decision to say the least.

(All this assumes that the alliance format stays the same for 2017)

[bkahl]

12 divisions... Sheesh.

We thought finding enough volunteers for 8 was gunna be rough. Now cut the volunteer pool in half and only take away 2 divisions. Then do it again.

Have fun, Jess.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Karthik

In 2013, 96 teams made the elimination rounds at the Championship (4 divisions, 8 alliances per division, 3 teams per alliance).
In 2017, 384 teams will make the elimination rounds at the Championships (2 Championships, 6 divisions per championship, 8 alliances per division, 4 teams per alliance).

In essence, this is the approximate equivalent (384/400) of every team from the 2013 Championship making the elimination rounds. Some people will really like this change, some will really dislike this change. An interesting decision to say the least.

(All this assumes that the alliance format stays the same for 2017)

This is an interesting take. I'd put myself in the first group of 'some people' for the simple reason that in 2017, almost 400 teams get to come home to their schools/communities and brag that they were (at least) quarterfinalists at the world championship. This can lead to great press, great community support, great feelings back home in general.

I understand the traditionalist argument of this making the event watered down, and I don't disagree with that. But for the larger goal of changing the culture through grass roots, getting people back home excited about a local's team success goes a long way toward celebrating STEM.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Taylor

This is an interesting take. I'd put myself in the first group of 'some people' for the simple reason that in 2017, almost 400 teams get to come home to their schools/communities and brag that they were (at least) quarterfinalists at the world championship. This can lead to great press, great community support, great feelings back home in general.

I understand the traditionalist argument of this making the event watered down, and I don't disagree with that. But for the larger goal of changing the culture through grass roots, getting people back home excited about a local's team success goes a long way toward celebrating STEM.

Yup, my letting more teams go to Champs and more teams into the elimination rounds (and more teams with a reasonable shot of making the elimination rounds, you're definitely going to have more happy customers. Of course you'll have those who don't like the further dilution of the product, but numerically that looks to be a minority, albeit a vocal one. (I'm a member if this minority, however I totally understand why FIRST would cater to what I perceive to be the majority here)

--

As a few people have mentioned, VEX has been running a Round Robin since 2013. Here's a link to an archive of the 2016 Round Robin.

http://livestream.com/vrctv1/2016-wo...osing-ceremony (Starts at 17:30)

You'll probably get a better idea of how it flows from watching the full Livestream archive instead individual matches on YouTube. It's taken a couple of years for us to educate the community on exactly how it works and to get them into the action. It is definitely not the most intuitive format, especially when you factor in tiebreakers, to an audience who is used to a standard best 2 out of 3 bracket. When done well, it's the most exciting hour (would take much longer in FRC) of robotics; match after match of the best teams in the world facing off. However to someone who's not robotics junkie, it could drag on, especially if lots of delays/speakers are introduced between matches.

In general I'm a big fan of this format, especially for the strategy that it introduces. I'm sure teams on Einstein will enjoy the opportunity to play against every other alliance. Many time when 1114 was on Einstein, we almost forgot about the alliances we never had a chance to play. In 2010, both us and 2056 were on Einstein, a fact that I forget regularly since we never played them, and were busy strategizing while they were playing.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Yup, my letting more teams go to Champs and more teams into the elimination rounds (and more teams with a reasonable shot of making the elimination rounds, you're definitely going to have more happy customers. Of course you'll have those who don't like the further dilution of the product, but numerically that looks to be a minority, albeit a vocal one. (I'm a member if this minority, however I totally understand why FIRST would cater to what I perceive to be the majority here)

Just exactly what do you see as "the product"?

Me, I see the product as a generation inspired in STEM by participation. More participation is more inspiration not dilution.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Just exactly what do you see as "the product"?

Me, I see the product as a generation inspired in STEM by participation. More participation is more inspiration not dilution.

It depends on how you look at FRC. Some look at FRC as merely robotics competition. Some look at it as a change agent. Others look at it as both with various weights on the two sides.