Just because a robot was a second pick doesn’t mean they are of any less value to the alliance.
Lets say you’re an alliance captain, and for your chosen strategy, you want a fast cycler, and a good FCS. So through scouting, you narrow it down to 1986 for your cycler, and 148 as your FCS (Just choosing teams at random here). And lets say that nobody else is going to pick them (for some reason :p). You only get one pick at a time, so you can’t pick them simultaneously, so you have to pick one and then the other.
If you pick 148 first, does that mean 1986 isn’t a good robot?
If you pick 1986 first, does that mean 148 isn’t a good robot?
Sports teams don’t pick each other. FRC teams pick other FRC teams out of necessity by the game. I understand your point though. I’m just concerned that it brings in some teams that really don’t deserve to go. In Calgary, 2 teams got tickets to worlds without being able to drive…
Don’t worry, I’m aware of that. We were in that exact position last year, and to a certain extent this year as well.
It’s just frustrating seeing some teams with a ticket to worlds who might have spent 100 hours, while others who have spent >200 don’t have a ticket. Wildcards are nice, but for teams that only go to week 1 events, it really does suck.
Please realize that there’s a big difference between the following two statements:
Only the winning alliance captain and their first pick should qualify for the Championship in order to keep the number of teams manageable.
The second pick doesn’t really deserve to go to the Championship.
Personally, I could live with not sending the 2nd pick, but I definitely would NOT say that they don’t deserve to go. Similar logic applies to the Rookie All Star - sure, I think they deserve to go, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t send the finalist alliance captain or the finalist alliance first pick before the RAS, were I given control over everything.
Not taking the winning alliance’s second pick would get awkward when 8th seed alliances win since the 8th and 9th picks are essentially equal. In my opinion, 8th alliance second picks should be an exception if FIRST ends up deciding that the second pick is a place where they can make the Championship less crowded. It wouldn’t be a huge number of extra spots - possibly less than the number of backup robots that currently qualify as the 4th bot on a winning alliance.
The district system handles the 2nd pick problem nicely.
Sustained solid performance plus a win as a 2nd pick will score you enough points to make it to champs. However, just winning as a 2nd pick and performing poorly otherwise doesn’t get you there.
I am only a parent, but to me, Championships (and FIRST) is about Inspiration. I think the focus is right where it needs to be, on INSPIRATION. If FIRST wanted to concentrate on the WINNING: 1) Teams wouldn’t be playing 3 on 3 with the whole winning alliance earning a trip to Championships. (I realize the district model is moving FIRST away from this.) 2) They would level the playing field and there would be MORE RULES about build season, such as a certain percent of the work needs to be done by students or mentors or more restrictions on custom made parts. 3) They wouldn’t design a seeding structure that is primarily based on win/lose and not by points scored. 4) They wouldn’t give slots to RCA , RAS and EI teams. I could go on, but I’ll stop there. I think FIRST knows what they are emphasizing at Championships, and they aren’t looking to have only the best robots on the field. They want to inspire as many diverse groups of kids as they can. And they won’t do that if it’s just about robot performance.
My sons’ team is wrapping up their fourth year in FRC. Their rookie year was very successful, winning RAS at two events and they were VERY successful at championships. The next year, they were awarded an RCA and won an event, and were pretty successful at Championships. The third year was rough, they had a great bot but bad luck and they didn’t make it to Championships. This year, they had a decent bot but got EI and went to Championships with a middle of the road bot. We were probably one of those teams that brought the average down. We’ve had lots of turn over on the team this year and most of the kids had not been to Championships until this year. I am certain it was one of those experiences that will make a difference in the team’s direction over the next few years. They needed to see the possibilities and see how they can work to grow the program. They are pretty charged up right now and that’s a good thing!
Well, unless you’re that loser that wins the District Championship as 2nd pick.
Then you end up on Einstein.
In all seriousness, I like the district model’s way of handling second picks–we’d just have to try that much harder. I think a similar point system could work even outside of districts themselves.
The good news is, by 2015 there will be at least 4 more districts: 2 District systems in California, 1 in New England, and 1 for MD/DC/VA. After seeing what districts have done to the level of play in other regions of the country, I can’t wait
Wow that would have really sucked for us in 2010. We were 359 and 100’s 2nd pick when we won in San Diego as the 22nd pick. after SD, we ended up losing in LA in the finals after four matches…
Luckily we get to go to champs. As we ended up going undefeated on Newton, captaining the 1 seed with 67 and 177 and then taking out the unbeatable alliance of 1114 and 469…
Bottom line… never ever discount 2nd picks you never know how they will improve.
While I can understand where you’re coming from, ask yourself why the 3rd robot on an alliance plays on Einstein, like you had the chance to. Yes it is a higher level of competition, but the principle remains the same, in my opinion.
Certainly isn’t the 3rd best robot in the division. They get to play because its an alliance. Also, its easy for you to gauge out on the field if the 3rd bot doesn’t perform as much as its partners, but that certainly doesn’t mean the team didn’t work just as hard as others, but within their own means. 1640 has won two MAR championships in a row as the third bot, and districts/regionals as a third bot (if I recall correctly) but they’ve always earned the right to attend.
Adam does make a good point about districts helping to ease this concern, but I think others might be judging the discussion of the 3rd bot on an alliance way too irrationally.
Similarly, saying that the 3rd bot on a regional winning alliance doesn’t “deserve” to play at champs is a pretty bold statement.
The other thing is that some robots aren’t designed to be captains or first picks. A robot like 4334’s last year was designed to be the ideal 2nd pick. It was simple and effective, and it did exactly what it was built to do. To eliminate a category of defensive or support robots from championship would undermine the efforts of teams that build excellent robots that serve purposes other than offense.
That’s why 4334 was on Einstein last year.
That’s also why they won IRI.
Third picks can make or break alliances at more difficult regionals and especially at championships.
This is why I like the idea of districts. It takes into account many more factors than previously possible. This cumulative ranking system allows teams to go based on their program, outreach, robot performance, and much more. Then, teams that were good enough to be the top 8 but not necessarily on the winning alliance - and we’re consistently performing at a moderate level - get to go to championships. As others have said earlier, this allows the best and most consistent teams to go through to championships.
I haven’t read this entire thread, so pardon if this has already been discussed. Why are we limiting ourselves to solutions that focus on inspiring those inside the FRC community? Shouldn’t we also be taking into account those outside, that will stay outside, but still can be inspired by FIRST?
What about this to maximize the number of matches per team at CMP: two fields per division? It could let teams play 16 (!!!) matches in quals, and still let CMP both grow and maintain the current divsion setup.
Unlikely that Minnesota will be on districts by then. I can’t speak for Indiana/Illinois (though I’ve heard they were considering it next year???).
Don’t get me wrong, Minnesota will be on Districts eventually-- possibly even sooner than I can predict, but we simply don’t have the volunteer infrastructure to make it happen reasonably.
