2010 IRI Results and Awards

Competition Off-Season Events
21

Some general comments and suggestions for the event.

  • A huge thank you to the IRI organizing committee for putting on such an amazing event. The amount of work it takes to pull off an event of this scope is overwhelming, yet the people at IRI make it look easy.
  • Don’t bring back the judged awards. I for one didn’t miss them at all, and actually found myself being thankful that we didn’t have to sit through them this year.
  • Move the mentor matches to Friday night. This way they if a team damages their robot during the course of these matches, they’ll have some time to fix the problem. Also, these matches disrupt the flow of intensity between alliance selection and the elimination rounds. I’d have no problem with this even disappearing completely, but I know many people really enjoy them. Friday evening during dinner sounds like a decent compromise

Finally, the elephant in the room. I waited until now to post this in hopes that someone else would make the point first. Frankly I’m surprised that no one has brought this up yet, considering I talked to at least 10 different teams who felt just as strongly as I do about this. This year’s IRI felt too big. The level of play during the qualification rounds really seemed diluted compared to past IRIs. The feel was very similar to what you get at the Championships with many people asking “wait, how did this team get here?”. Sure the elimination rounds were amazing as usual, but this was only after the field shrunk to 32 teams. In past years when IRI was smaller, the majority of qualification matches felt like IRI elimination matches. The atmosphere in the building was constantly electric.

I’d love to see IRI go down to about 50 teams and use a qualifying point system similar to what’s used in Michigan based on regional and Championship performances. At 50 teams there could be more qualifying matches per team, and the event could regain the intimate feel that it used to have which made the event so magical. I know many teams would even be willing to pay a higher entry fee to make up the budgetary difference.

I know this is a bit of a controversial take, hence the silence about it on these forums despite plenty of this chatter at the event. IRI is was an amazing event at 78 teams this year, but a smaller event with more rigid qualifying rules could make IRI an even more exciting and rewarding competition.

22

There was an elephant in the room? I had no idea!

Actually, 10 teams doesn’t sound all that much but maybe there are more teams who feel the same way and will provide that information to the planning committee.

If judged awards are gone permanently, that puts the emphasis on the robot and the robot competition and that impact will increase as time passes - which is fine if that is what it is all about. It would make it harder for someone like me to travel to an event like IRI when I see more than the robot and look at the spirit of the team and like to recognize that.

Jane

23

While the issue is far from a simple matter, I agree with Karthik. Rejecting a team from the IRI is something I’m very glad the selection committee has not taken lightly, and I also see the positives to allowing loyal and friendly teams to return year after year. However, I think the balance between maintaining a deep, competitive field and including so many teams that contribute to the IRI year after year may be tilted a bit farther away from the competitive side than I’d prefer. Schedules determine seeding at IRI more than any event I’ve been to, at least in the past two years that I’ve attended. Basically, the team that lucks out and gets a schedule full of teams that had world class robots gets the number one seed. Not to take anything away from those teams (330 is one of the top 10-20 robots of 2010 and earned their #1 seed), but I really think a field needs to be both deep and even to make an event like this as competitive as possible.

On the flip side, allowing less teams means more rejections, obviously, and that sucks for those teams. I wish there was a way for those teams to be included in some way. I know members of my team opted to volunteer, and in my case, fielded a Vex robot. Perhaps side events or other similar opportunities could be presented for the IRI loyalists out there? It’s not a simple problem with a simple solution by any means, and if a more competitive field is called for I don’t envy the people that have to make the tough decisions.

24

On the planning committee for IRI, there are now 2 WFAs and there is AndyMark to consider. If an event makes the decision to cater only to the elite in the robotic competition - then that decision has to be weighed very carefully because it sends a very clear message. Eventually, it could evolve into only the elite of the elite. That may take a few years but it would evolve to that. When that happens then things change, including the scope of FRC as applied to an off-season.

What happens to the invited teams that are developing and maturing and have the opportunity to be mentored by the teams who have garnered more experience and awards? Those who have had that opportunity, return to their area or region with that experience, bringing the possibility of helping to strengthen their area or region along with them. They have also established some networking opportunities just as the elite teams have.

On the other hand, if an area decided to implement an off-season that was strictly for the elite at the outset - then the purpose of the event would be known up front and center without the history to clutter its intent. IRI has evolved to this point. They did in recent past, but have continued to be more open to the different levels of experience when extending an invitation.

Jane

25

Since it is an invitational event, and the term “elite” could be interpreted many ways, making the event smaller would really put pressure on the folks issuing the invitation to invite the right mix of teams to keep IRI an amazing event. If the only criteria is robot performance or competition wins, then you are going to have pure robot competition on the field. But then that is only one aspect of what makes a great competition.

The trick is to come up with an objective formula that makes an exciting competition.

Maybe this is the formula:

10% is reserved for CCA winners
All Einstein teams are invited
30% reserved for other championship teams
30% reserved for regional finalist and winners
10% for team award winners
10% for machine award winners
10% for RCA winners

Then the number of teams to choose is set, maybe 50 team, maybe 75 and then the formula above is applied.

I also think judged awards could work if the number of the awards is kept small; 2 team, 2 machine awards, possibly award multiples of the small number of awards; 2 quality awards, 2 innovation awards, 2 team spirit, 2 entrepreneur awards. Set the number of judges at 20% of the number of teams, and have the judges work with the teams for the interviews. With the right combination of awards/judges/teams it should be possible to make the impact on the teams minimal. Also streamline the award process, teams send 2 representatives to pick up the awards, get the presentation of each award under 5 minutes and less than an hour is needed for 8 awards.

Food for thought

26

You forgot the Indiana teams.
I’ve heard and seen (not pointing fingers) that Indiana teams literally get the first picks.

27

I’m from one of the teams that went to IRI this year but I’m pretty sure that if the event were to be downsized we wouldn’t have made the cut. Yes we did win the Xerox Creativity Award for DEWBOT VI’s innovative 4-wheel independent pivot drive-train at Philadelphia and were part of the 5th alliance and made it to the semis. But we are not 469 (but we aspire to be!)

When we got the invite the team discussion revolved around “We are going to a knife fight armed with a spoon, what are we going to do about that?” So we spent the 4 weeks before IRI doing upgrades to our kicker, possessor and to our programming code.

At IRI we ended up 31st (34th in Ed Laws rankings). I’m pretty pleased with that result when I factor in the teams that were there. So we must of had one of the sharpest spoons there. :slight_smile:

The win for me was being able to see teams like 148, 1114, 33, etc. operate both on the field and in the pits. Both Clem (Head Mentor) and I came home with notebooks and cameras full of things to try/build/investigate. Most of our roboteers were inspired by things they saw and want to try to expand on. I think this was the point that Jane was trying to make. We are not all big dawgs, but we are learning.

From an event size view I was stunned. It was hard to imagine that there were almost 80 teams there. There was a ton of space we never felt crowded. Match queues were good with Ed doing his world class robot wrangling. I’ve said it before, it’s the best run FRC event I’ve ever been to. And I thought the qualification matches were better than the finals at FLR and Philadelphia. I’ve never been on Einstein, so that may be a whole different world.

I like that it’s an Invitational and I’m glad that our team squeaked in the door. I’m good that the Indiana teams get first crack at slots. It would seem silly to deny a team in IRI’s back yard a chance to play. Granted it may seem like being forced to take your little sister to play with your friends, but I’ve found that little sisters grow up and become cool people.

So I’m happy to have gotten a chance to go and if offered will accept a chance to take our team in 2011. It was one of those must do robot experiences. But I also understand that it’s an Invitational and a smaller tighter team list may improve the experience and matches for the roboteers there.

28

The year I saw the details of the actual selection process, it seemed to be more of an “Indiana bonus” than an absolute guarantee, but the bonus can certainly be sized to have the effect of a guarantee in practice. The committee worked very hard to weight various factors and let an algorithm rank teams rather than rely on subjective opinions.

There has been a repeated call for more Indiana offseason competitions. One effect would be to take the “local” pressure off the IRI and let it be more fully elite.

29

Thanks for all the input.

All of the comments are good, and will be considered and discussed by the planning team at an August event review.

To clarify a few things, just so people understand.

The only teams that are “automatic” are the previous years IRI champions, and the three host teams. Everyone else is subject to the same ranking criteria for the selection.

The event is not to invite the “elite” and I don’t even know how to define that. The intent is to invite the teams that best fit our selection criteria. That includes season performance on the field, some awards, loyalty, special considerations and many other factors. And, teams have to apply, and they have to be able to attend (many teams struggle to travel in the summer.)

And, we are smart enough people to not publish the criteria, because there would be multiple “IRI prediction algorithms” running as soon as the CHP was done. :smiley:

30

While we’re still posting suggestions, and on a slightly less serious note…is there any reason why Cotton-Eye Joe hasn’t been on the music playlist for two years? There weren’t any huge field errors, and I’m sure that you guys are trying to keep everyone focused on the event, but it would have been nice to be able to do some dancing between the elimination matches and during the time outs. One can only do the Chicken Dance, YMCA and the Cha-Cha Slide so many times :confused: (also…Cupid Shuffle?)

31

Please, please, do not re-add Cotton Eye Joe to the playlist. I was very happy with its absence! :stuck_out_tongue:

Thanks for the clarification about the selection criteria.

32

I concur. Cotton-eye Joe, YMCA, Chicken Dance…they are on my DNP list. Do not play. For the love of god.

33

I thought the DJ’s mix was awesome and was really happy to hear and sing along to some of the Beatles stuff. It was a perfectly timed pick-me-up during a tired time of the day. Good stuff!

34

As the coach of a team that was likely viewed as a “how-did-they-get-here,” I feel I must speak up on my team’s behalf.

I haven’t looked at the official rankings, but if we weren’t last, I’d be terribly surprised. Here’s why:
On Thursday several members of the team were at LNHS to help setting up the field and pit area for our 6th IRI. It was a hot July Indiana day, there were no outside windows around, and honestly our thoughts never really turned to weather. I have no idea how long the rain pelted our robot sitting in the back of a pickup truck. All I know is we went outside to get our pit installed and saw the wrath of God coming from above.

We took off and apart all jaguars, victors, and servos and dried them overnight, we changed out the PDB and sidecar (rewiring a robot on Friday morning is no small task, especially when you’re in the first match), we re-lubed the gearboxes, but still were having communication problems, mostly on the field that we couldn’t duplicate in our pit. Two matches, the robot spent the teleop period rebooting. One match, we had about a 2.5-second delay between sending the drive signals and the robot operations responding. One match, a freshly-charged battery read less than 8 volts (we hooked up a multimeter to it after the match and found it really still had >12V). One match, the entire left side of the robot refused to work.

I’ve really got to hand it to the students - despite all these setbacks, most of which we couldn’t replicate outside of matchplay - they kept their heads up, they kept troubleshooting, and on Saturday our alliances won both matches to bring our final record to 3-5.

When the planning committee extended an invitation to our team, I’m fairly sure they didn’t expect to get a waterlogged robot on Thursday.

As far as the call for more midwest offseason events, I submit to you CAGE Match - October 16.

I’m certain the folks that run IRI, and have done it for 10 years now, are much smarter than I am, and it is not my place to question their methods. Obviously they’re doing something right.

35

It seems like every team has been through an event like that at one point or another in their history. I hope for your teams sake that all the parts were recoverable and you don’t incur too much cost to replace damaged controllers.

I hope your team isn’t discouraged by these events. Unfortunately these lessons in seviceability and maintainability never come at an opportune time, but I guaruntee someone on your team suggests planning for a similar contigency next year. Your team will shrink wrap your robot well for transit and have very servicable electronics just in case.

36

Thanks for your words of encouragement. Thanks also to Alan Anderson, Andy Baker, Mark Koors, Chris Mills, and Chris Noble for your help in diagnosing problems.

As a side note, Mr. Lavery was gracious enough to autograph our robot: “See you on Mars Dave Lavery”.

I suppose he is very comfortable with the idea of water on Mars. :yikes:

37

I’m pretty certain that Dave also empathizes with you on the travails of handling extreme rain/robot interactions at IRI. :wink:

38

I will agree with Kara here. I agree that the Cotton-eye Joe shouldn’t be played more than 2 times in a weekend, but during the two regionals I went to this year the song to play during time outs and field issues was the Chicken Dance and the YMCA and those do nothing to help move the time along.

In general I thought the music could have used some help. Most of it was 80’s rock music (no offense to anyone but when it is played softly and they repeat songs 3 LONG songs in one day it makes it monotonous… especially when scouting). But when they did play something it was the same three songs Be My Escape by Relient K, and Alejandro/Telephone by Lady Gaga. Before going right back to the 80’s. Even in the eliminations when at most regionals they pull out the “intense music” as one DJ told me, it was the same rock music that was played all weekend.

I’ll listen to rock, but after this years IRI I will kill not to hear it again! :stuck_out_tongue:

Other than that it was a great event as always!

39

Has anyone given any thought to the idea that maybe our hosts were doing the best that they could given circumstances? Do any of us really know anything about the DJ situation this year and how it came to be or how it worked out? We had good music and I saw lots of folks celebrating and dancing. To my knowledge, no one left the party because of the music or replays.

Just some thoughts,
Jane

P.S. Idea: something that would be productive and helpful would be to start a thread with suggestions for a dynamite playlist for events. I know there have been threads like that in the past - perhaps it’s time to make one for the 2010-11 season. That beats the heck out of complaining.

40

Thanks to all for great input here. We will definitely pay more attention to the song list next year, and even buy some requested songs that we didn’t have available. Our DJ for next year is already working on this.

My personal opinion on this would be to strive for variety. This year, we really didn’t worry about it too much. With some DJ change over during long days, some songs got repeated. Next year, we will keep a history of what was played and also strive for more variety.

Andy B.