Qualification Points for Nationals- Give away?

[JVN]

Originally posted by Pin Man
We won a technology award and our robot was not good at all...

Well then that just speaks to the fact that the award process might be in need of an overhaul...

David,
Please calm down. Your philosophy on FIRST is not necessarily the "right" philosophy on FIRST. We all respect 88 and the way you guys do things, but you need to be open to the way others compete as well. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.


John

[Pin Man]

I'm sorry if I came across the wrong way... I'm not worked up at all I'm just stating my opinion... But in any case I'm sorry...

[Wayne C.]

After reading some of your replies to my original post I'd like to make a few statements-

1. Fair or unfair- if a team wanted to give away points to friends it would be their business. If they hurt the feelings of other teams that too would be their business. Quite frankly, if I had points to give to some teams that we have had a good relationship with and we could, I would happily do so. In my mind friends support friends. I miss seeing some of my friends when they don't qualify for Nats. No teams are entitled to anything so nobody should be offended.

2. All teams should be able to go to Nationals. It is a great experience for kids no matter how well they play. By saying only the "better teams" should go misses the point of FIRST to motivate as many kids as possible. Since the National Championship is not a TRUE championship by the nature of its qualification then it should be open to all. If it were a true championship then I too would insist that only the regional winners be allowed to play in it.

3. As far as some teams not having "brother or sister teams", well maybe it is time to find one or maybe help a neighbor start a new team. Then you WOULD have one. Sharing of the points might help build relationships between teams or allow mentors to boost the rookie teams they helped start.

Look, I doubt FIRST would ever agree to this because it is too complex for them to keep track of. But the sentiment to help others is here and FIRST should be for all kids, not just the ones fortunate enough to get on highly successful, highly competitive teams.

WC

(PS- not a bad discussion for the "dead season" eh?)

[DanLevin247]

I'm not sure if it has already been said, but here's some ideas for qualification...

If a team that has already qualified for Nationals qualifies again, that second spot is put in a "pool" of other open spaces ( that were earned in the same manner ). A waiting list is created, the higher an unqualified team is on the waiting list ( determined by a late nationals regrestration for teams who have not qualified ), the greater the chances for that team to get a spot at Nationals is.


Another suggestion could be, if a team has already qualified, and they earn a second spot, they may chose another team to take their second spot via a "pull a number out of a hat" raffle.

[Ryan Albright]

Um i have to agreee that giving points to a othre team would be to difficult but i think they should def rethink how teams make it to natationals. This year we place third in are regional over all and went far in are elmination matches. But due to us being a even number team, we didnt make it to nats. I mean we wehre all upset and just seing other teams make it over us that maybe didnt ahve a good as run as us was upsetting. The most upsetting thing is the team right across from us they built there whole robot at regionals and only played one match got to go to nationals cause of a odd number. That doesnt seem fair because we had are robot done on time. We earned are way up in the standing and then to get shafted like that was very upsetting.

[dez250]

Originally posted by DanLevin247
If a team that has already qualified for Nationals qualifies again, that second spot is put in a "pool" of other open spaces ( that were earned in the same manner ). A waiting list is created, the higher an unqualified team is on the waiting list ( determined by a late nationals registration for teams who have not qualified ), the greater the chances for that team to get a spot at Nationals is.

Dan, Great idea, I'm liking that... But what i also want to say is on Wayne's second point. After the team i have been on now, team 250 has been grandfathered into nationals due to being here since 1992, i know what hes saying. I have been there with my team a few times now. Each year it is a whole different field, and you see what it takes to really get there. (other then the odd/even teams). Some people have it some people don't. I was surprised this year when nationals was moved, though that how much the feeling didn't change and it was as if you were in Florida or where ever.
~Mike

[Mike Schroeder]

Originally posted by DanLevin247

If a team that has already qualified for Nationals qualifies again, that second spot is put in a "pool" of other open spaces ( that were earned in the same manner ). A waiting list is created, the higher an unqualified team is on the waiting list ( determined by a late nationals regrestration for teams who have not qualified ), the greater the chances for that team to get a spot at Nationals is.

Dan, Thats essentially how it is done now... if one of the orginal 9 win a regional, someoen on the waiting list takes that spot, or an odd/even team. its not like that spot just dissappears

[Madison]

How isn't this proposal functionally equivalent to the alliance selection process we've had for three of the past four seasons?

Some teams play "the game" (read: some teams win, some teams earn awards, etc.) and earn their way into the elimination rounds. Those teams then select the remaining team who'll join them.

During alliance selection, teams sometimes pick based on performance, sometimes on friendship, sometimes on need, and sometimes they do it randomly. I've never seen anyone complain about how unfair that process is, so what makes this different?

Think of qualification for the Championship as moving on to the biggest set of Elimination Rounds there is. The who, what, why, where, and how of who's playing isn't important, nor any of our business. Giving more people a chance at playing the game, though, is something we should all be working toward.

While we're at it, can we take on a matter of nomenclature for a moment? I'd like to see that "qualification" be removed entirely from FIRST's vocabulary, replaced with "opportunity" instead. It seems far more appropriate, since teams can both earn or be given the "opportunity" to compete and learn and play at the Championship Event.

[scuba_sm]

Well, a thought crossed my mind, that if you want to help another team, there are other ways to do so than trading points. You could teach them a new machining technique, or send one of your programmers to them to teach them how to run autonomous mode. It's like the old saying "If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime." If you give a team points, they may go to nationals, but have little or no overall improvement in their robot the following year. But, if that team has an excess of points, it means they must be doing something right. So, if they sent a few team members over to teach the team a few tricks, then that team may see a drastic improvment, and make it to nationals the next year, and continue improving with the knowledge gained. I think that most teams would be more gratefull for this type of assitance than points that get them to nationals for a year.

In response to a previous poster, you should not feel "shafted" because an odd numbered team got to go to nationals, even though they built their robot in the first regional. You will have the same oppurtunity next year. They may have picked that option as an engineering challenge for that year, or they may have been forced into that situation due to a lack of workspace, etc. Perhaps going to nationals will give them a chance to recieve help that they couldn't obtain at the regionals.

I know that makes a strong case for everyone going to nationals every year, but that is simply not possible. We would literally take over the town! If you look at the current system another way... almost everybody is in high school for 4 years. That means, if they are on the team all 4 years, that they will go to nationals twice (assuming they win no awards, etc). That seems "fair" to me, but as was said above, there is no right answer, no definition of fair that everyone agrees on, and no way that we can achieve a perfect "fairness." When we reach the "real world" of engineering and technology, it is no longer the expierence that is important, it is the creation of a successful product. There are no prizes for second best in the real world, unfortunately. I think if we expierence just a little of that before we are sent out to design the next generation of cars, planes, spaceships, segways, etc. it will make us better engineers as a whole. Of course, this is just my belief, and there is nothing to say I am right. You can agree, and that's fine. You can disagree with me, and I'm fine with that as well, and would love to hear your point of view as well!

[Madison]

Are you suggesting that giving a team the opportunity to spend three or more days surrounded by the best teams in the country isn't a learning experience?

...that the students won't see new ways of doing things, learn new ways of implementing solutions, or otherwise be hugely inspired by the amazing display of humanity and machinery that comes together during that event?

I'm not sure I'd agree at all.

[Amanda Morrison]

Originally posted by Wayne C.
1. Fair or unfair- if a team wanted to give away points to friends it would be their business. If they hurt the feelings of other teams that too would be their business. Quite frankly, if I had points to give to some teams that we have had a good relationship with and we could, I would happily do so. In my mind friends support friends. I miss seeing some of my friends when they don't qualify for Nats. No teams are entitled to anything so nobody should be offended.

Not only would it be their business, it would be quite a dilemma. There are lots of hard feelings to be had at the expense of others. Even simply saying, "I'm sorry, but we've decided not to share points this year" could really tick off the team that only needs 3 more points. No matter what, there is going to be lots of biases going around, and personally I know I would want no part of it.

Originally posted by Wayne C.
3. As far as some teams not having "brother or sister teams", well maybe it is time to find one or maybe help a neighbor start a new team. Then you WOULD have one. Sharing of the points might help build relationships between teams or allow mentors to boost the rookie teams they helped start.

I did. But I know that out of all the teams that I am friends with or started or within my state, I'd feel pretty bad having to pick and choose my 'real' friends. Nobody should be in that type of position. Instead, with the system we have now, we're competitive for three days and then we're just back to being FIRST teams: Groups of kids and their mentors learning and having a good time. I hope I can help to keep it that way.

[scuba_sm]

Originally posted by M. Krass
Are you suggesting that giving a team the opportunity to spend three or more days surrounded by the best teams in the country isn't a learning experience?

...that the students won't see new ways of doing things, learn new ways of implementing solutions, or otherwise be hugely inspired by the amazing display of humanity and machinery that comes together during that event?

I'm not sure I'd agree at all.

I do agree that it is a great learning expierence, I've been there. But I also think that it would be a logistical nightmare for everyone to go every year, (we'd fill just about every hotel in any city we chose!) and I think that there is something to be learned and gained from the current situation. The fact that you have to earn points to go may seem a little biased against new teams (well, maybe not just a little...) but if you have to work to go, you are more inclined to work for it, whereas if you can get there by "mooching" points, you are less likely to work as hard as you would otherwise. Nobody wants to think that's true, but it has been proven numerous times. At the same time, you don't have to go to nationals to learn. If you don't go to nationals, it gives you that much more time to workout what went well, and what didn't, and work on changing it for the next year. In addition, just because you can't go, doesn't mean you can't watch webcasts, or the movies that numerous teams record and make available to the public. I know it's not the same, but it still offers you the chance to learn. To look at this in a slightly different light, in the light of a previous poster, how would you feel if your robot did spectacularly, and won every match it was in, and yet, you recieved no special recognition? Well, that wouldn't be "fair" to you, but it would be fair to the rookie team that had absolutely no expierence with building robots before. There are two sides to every story, and we've got to look at both. I stand by my opinion that it would be a greater benifit to a team to send people to teach, than to send points. That, of course, is just my opinion, and I appreciate you discussing your opinion with me.

Originally posted by scuba_sm
I do agree that it is a great learning expierence, I've been there. But I also think that it would be a logistical nightmare for everyone to go every year, (we'd fill just about every hotel in any city we chose!)

Just have to add a little point here..

FIRST isnt that big. The city of Houston is the 4th largest city in the United States, and will be hosting the 2004 Super Bowl for about 60,000 fans. Im sure many larger cities wouldn't have any problem hosting about 10,000-15,000 FIRST participants, especially Houston and Atlanta. Also Atlanta hosted the 1996 Summer Olympics, where they host hundreds of thousand fans and participants.

In other words, right now size is not a problem.

[Mike Schroeder]

Originally posted by scuba_sm
I do agree that it is a great learning expierence, I've been there. But I also think that it would be a logistical nightmare for everyone to go every year, (we'd fill just about every hotel in any city we chose!) and I think that there is something to be learned and gained from the current situation.

Well, Like DJ, Said, Size Doesnt Matter, but, if there is always the option of going back to the way it was before the rules, and let anyone and everyone sign up, just put a limit, and have a waiting list, so now instead of people complain about qualified teams, they will complain about people signing up too quickly, so that will become the problem, I think that the current system is just fine, that is not the point of this thread, Its to get people's opinions in this idea that Wanye C. had,

Now in my honest opinion, lets get this thread back on track.

I really reall think this is a good idea, in all possiblity, most teams will give their excesse points to rookie teams, giving these new teams, giving them a chance to get known.

[Gary Dillard]

A few scattered thoughts here:

1) Suppose you expanded the points system for additional qualifying - something like major points and minor points. Say 200 teams qualify for spots with major points - something similar to the existing qualifying. The remaining spots would be given to the top 100 minor point winners - giving different points for all the regional awards, past year's history, etc.

2) Along with that (or separate from it) - for teams that go to multiple regionals, they only get to use their best regional, or an average of all of them, or an average but drop the lowest.

3) Suppose we had a parallel national event where all the rest of the teams got to come and compete with each other on a lower scale. Sort of like the NIT is to the NCAA basketball championship - very few teams turn down the invitation even though they're not in the running for the national championship. They use it to build experience for future years. I think the experience of a large national event is worth it for all the teams to get excited about. Ideally it's held in conjunction with the national championship - even if it's a smaller pit and one field, they get to be involved. They get to hear Dean and Woody and join the community.