Championship Qualification - How you would've done it

For those of you with the extra energy after posting in Andy B’s “constructive criticism” thread, my “Things you like and want to keep” thread, and in the general forum CE thread, let’s try something a little more fun.

A lot of you said “if it was up to me, I would’ve done it this way”, and a lot more of you said “I don’t like rule # xxx”. So how about a free for all “if it really is up to you, how would you have done it”? Now that all of you knows what FIRST think is important, and what most other posters think is important, how would you redo the CE qualification process?

Keep in mind this is not a thread about constructive criticism, so even if you see some ideas you disagree, keep them in forms of PM’s or e-mails.

I think it’s about time we stretch our creativities once again, and just have fun with the idea that “I can think whatever I like”. :slight_smile:

I think we have already hit a lot of this in the main CE thread. We’re going to end up with a lot of the smae stuff that is not well thought out.

How about to post instead making FULL well-developed plans that would be the entire set of requirements, not just one or two. I think this would better exercise our ability to compromise.

Or am I totally off topic here? I’m not sure exactly how you wanted this to go. Perhaps you should present the first idea, Ken?

Sounds like a good idea :-). I understand there are a lot of ideas that was expressed already. Remember the Dave Lavery’s thread of FIRST asking for suggestions?

I suggested this thread because I see some good ideas buried inside the main CE thread inside general forum, but they are either short ideas, or got overwhelmed by the main discussions.

How about a more defined challenge? Consider all the teams in FIRST, the logistical issues, and fairness as well as the spirit of the program, and develope a well developed plan for Championship event and its qualification. Keep in mind that you can start from stratch and work your way up, or develope a plan base on existing ideas. You can stretch your imagination as far as what you want to do with a Championship Event, or how you think a future version ought to look like when there are FIRST teams in every high school in the nation.

Then we can conclude the exercise by seeing which ones we like the best.

It will probably take a lot of time, and most people are really busy. but I just thought it wouldn’t hurt to suggest this exercise.

I guess a while back I was thinking of asking for suggestions on how to make the new rules better, but that really belongs in Andy B’s constructive criticism thread.

So somethings ideas to consider:

About the event itself:
What is the purpose of your Championship Event?
How big many teams would you allow to register?
Where is your CE located at? (In Disney World again? Atlanta? Hawaii? In Canada (international)? On Mars? :wink: )
When is your CE held? (April? June? or 2005? 2080?)
What sort of things can teams do beside going to the competition?
What are the top concerns you think the teams might have? (Security? Fun place to visit? Transportation? Cost?)
How many staff/volunteers will you need to run your CE?

About the qualification process:
How would teams qualify for the competition?
What values do you want to show with the qualification process?
Do you think the current scoring system/alliance system is good enough to show if a team is good enough to qualify for CE or not? (if now, how would you fix the qualification process to compensate?)

So, the challenge is kind of like “Build your own Championship Event”.

I am not sure if it is asking too much, but I want to see where this takes us. Remember, DO NOT make a post until you thought out your plan and can actually convince yourself it’s a good one.

Since my math quiz is done and I’m bored, here is my plan:

-Keep the current tiered system
-Place rookies instead on the first tear that’s guaranteed to go, place them on the second/third tier, this would help have a few go when we start to have thousands of teams
-‘Founding’ teams will be entered twice into the ‘pool’ when their tiers are up for picking for Champs. This allows them to go more often, but not guaranteed.
-Chairmans winners on the regional level will be registered for that years Champs and the year after’s.
-Championship Chairmans winners will be given a ‘5 Year Pass’ to the Champs, this allows for a major award for them, yet not limiting the amount of teams at Champs (after 5 years or so we will have 20 teams that will ALWAYS go, so this will help keep it down in latter years.)
-National’s Winners get a ‘2 Year Pass’ to Championship for the next year and the year after.
-Regional winners get to go that year OR the next. So if they don’t have the funds or they qualify at a late regional, they can still go.
-The Engineering Inspiration award gets to go for that year’s Champs. They have no ‘either or’ pass for them.

So the MAX amount of teams that go automatically is…

x=number of regionals

(x*3[or the amount of teams in alliances that year]+x+x)+(5[Chairmans]+3[or the amount of teams in alliances that year])= amount of pre-registered teams.

Complicated, no? :stuck_out_tongue:

Lets assume we have 20 regionals this year with 3 team alliance system…

(20*3+20+20)+(5+3)= 108 teams

That’s a MAX of 108 for that year, that’s if no teams choose to go next year. That’s slightly more than this year, but in future years it will grow slower than the system that was just initiated.

It addresses two big issues that I have with the current system: '92 teams go automatically, this gives them an edge yet dosn’t automatically let them in. The second is the big problem with the Chairmans award winners. While now they make up a small amount of teams, in a few years they will be many teams that go automatically. So now you get a ‘5 year pass’ that allows you to go for 5 years.

Also for addressing the rookies, they’ll be placed randomly in the 2 & 3 year tiers. Here’s my tiered system, just to clear up any confusion:

Tier 0: Automatically allow to go
Tier 1: Havn’t been to Champs in 6 years
Tier 2: Havn’t been in 5 years
Tier 3: Havn’t been in 4 years
Tier 4: Havn’t been in 3 years
Tier 5: Havn’t been in 2 years
Tier 6: Havn’t been in 1 year
Tier 7: Went last year

So every year you don’t go you move up one tier. If you go that year, then you fall down to #7 unless you are prequalified.

Now what about those poor Rookies with their new Rookie Inspiration award you say? This is version 1.0, so look for 2.0 based on your comments and add the Rookie Inspiration award then too.

How can we cut the fat from this system in years to come? Easy, reduce the amount of teams in an alliance to 2. This drops the 108 pre-registered teams to 82.

Why think ahead so much? Why plan and limit while we don’t have to now? The past 5 years we have had 3 different qalification system set up. This system will stay the same year to year for many years to come. It’s like having the qualifications for the World Series changed year to year. It confuses people and makes things too complicated.

Now, this system is based on wins, but it could easily be changed to average score, award based, or even future criteria.

Also to add, when I say '92 teams, I mean what they are given this year, free ride. If FIRST expands this to '93 or '94 teams, the same will happen.

I think that since it is, after all, call the Championship Event, it should be treated as such.

In order to do this, I think they should do the point system, yet change it so that the top, say, 300 teams get in. It’d be great if you could qualify for a certain year’s CE in that year, but that would mean EVERY team finds out whether or not they’re going a few days before. So maybe you have to qualify for a certain year’s CE the year before (like before, but with the above guidelines. Only problem is, no rookie teams would go.

I think the system for this year is a good system, but not for a “Championship”. It’s now basically like another Regional, except that teams rotate in and out.

I would have the top preforming robots at each regional go - perhaps the top 4 alliances per regional.

4*3 = 12 robots per regional

12=26 regionals = ~312 robots at the nationals - maybe less if some teams win at multiple regionals.

312/4 = 78 teams per division, with 4 divisions.

Sounds good to me.

I think the larger issue at hand is what are the nationals?

Are they to see who has the best robot and strategy, or are they a vacation for anyone on a robotics team? I would like to think it is the former.

If rookies can get into one of the top 4 alliances, they would go. Otherwise, they should try harder next year. Being new doesn’t mean you ought to get special priviledges.

*Originally posted by Ben Mitchell *
**I would have the top preforming robots at each regional go - perhaps the top 4 alliances per regional.

4*3 = 12 robots per regional

12=26 regionals = ~312 robots at the nationals - maybe less if some teams win at multiple regionals.

312/4 = 78 teams per division, with 4 divisions.

Sounds good to me.**

I like that system, it’s simple, concise, and works exceptionally well. However wouldn’t FIRST have to expand the CE to accommodate those teams plus any more? Like Chairmans winners? I think it has potential if you were to drag it out and really develop it.