2012 Championship Engineering Inspiration Award winner
2012 Einstein teams New this season: Open Championship registration has changed to open Championship wait list registration. During this enrollment period, FRC teams will immediately go onto a wait list for the FIRST Championship.
As the number of FRC teams and events continue to grow, the number of merit-based qualifying teams also grows. We can’t predict the exact number of slots that will be available to veteran teams through an open registration process, but the number is likely to be small.
We will release FIRST Championship slots to wait listed teams as the season progresses and we become comfortable that all merit-based qualifying teams (teams winning awards at 2013 events that qualify them to go to Championship) are being accommodated.
Merit criteria based on robot performance in season?
I thought it was first on first off, but when 188 and 1732 both made it into Champs off the waitlist at the last minute in 2011 I started to wonder if their was some handpicking or if their number just happened to be up. Two great teams for sure.
Does FIRST publish the waitlist or let you know in any way how far down the list you are?
FIRST has not published the waitlist the past several years and they have already mentioned that no list will be currently.
Personally, I think they should.
If a larger part of the priority is given to teams that sign up on the waitlist first, it makes sense to show whether you are, for example, #5 on the list vs. #100.
Travel plans and expenses arent something that a team can just whip up and call it a day.
I don’t like this idea at all. Why is a team who gets one of these slots just because they are lucky enough to be at a regional where there is a duplicate winner deserve the spot any more than a team that wasn’t lucky enough to be at a regional with a duplicate winner? This will also favor teams who attend late season regionals.
This will also leave very few spots (if none at all available) for wait listed teams.
Please don’t do this. But if you do, at least give the spot to the team who is the highest seed that didn’t earn a spot by being lucky enough to win. *
I think it is better than the old system, but still has flaws. Teams that play at earlier regionals are severely disadvantaged, alliance selections may be affected (if teams are smart), and there will be conflicted motives as teams may want to play the tougher, but already qualified, alliances in the finals. Teams may have to choose if they want to put themselves in position to more likely win the event or qualify for the championship. While not as severe, it reminds me a little of the 2010 ranking system.
It is certainly a step in the right direction, but I hope the details alliavate some of my concerns.
I like the idea, but I don’t like the execution much either. First, I agree with IndySam that it has a very weird element of luck to it. (There’s always luck, but be-at-this-event luck seems to push it to me.) It also seems to be rather arbitrarily limited: why doesn’t it include other pre-qualified teams? What about double qualifiers from the same event: winner winning Chairman’s? Or if one of the culture winners qualifies earlier? Someone gets a shot if I (haha) win Chairman’s and then an event but not an event and then a Chairman’s?
What might be the downsides to taking all/most/some of the double-qual slots and turning them into 1+ at-large wildcard/merit-ranked/lottery bids? Still less room for buy-ins,* but at least it avoids some of the win vs qualify and early vs late event issues.
*I still feel like there must be a better way to do the buy-in thing. Ok, maybe there’s a case for the inspiration it can lend to less-winning teams, but shouldn’t everyone have to do something? Write an persuasive essay, give a presentation, volunteer/liaison…something? Everyone’s got something more than just a fast finger to offer. <<Crazy talk.
You bring up some discussion worthy points.
But we all know the current system isnt fair either.
Why should Hawaii teams who cant log in to sign up for CMP on the waitlist vs. US mainland teams, be penalized to fall further on the waitlist.
In the past, we waited almost 20-30 minutes of constantly trying to sign in to sign up for CMP.
Honest question: what’s the difference between the mainland and OCONUS signups? We’ve had similar waits for TIMS, and we’re in Pennsylvania. I thought it was just a location-independent server overload (or some much more technical term).
So lets see if I understand the wildcard slots correctly.
If a team has won RCA, RAS, EI, or the regional at a previous regional, the alliance captain, first pick, and second pick will qualify in that order based on how many teams from the winning alliance have qualified by winning one of the aforementioned awards?*
If a team has pre-qualified in anyway, (i.e. HOF, pre registering), this is not applicable?
The new wild card system is far from being perfectly fair, but show me a system that is fair. I can’t believe anyone would actually object to that change, as it’s clearly more “fair” (in terms of allocating spots to deserving/succesful teams) than the previous system. I don’t see how anyone could argue that it’s not an improvement over previous years.
And I’d hardly categorize attending an event where you have to compete against a team good enough to earn multiple bids to championship as “lucky.”
I’ve been told by very reliable folks that the District Model is coming here to Texas in the next 2-3 years… and that the number of Texas teams, as it stands now, that will qualify for CHAMPIONSHIP is 16 based upon an accumulation of points…
The TOP 16 Texas point accumulators go to the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP!
This new approach, adding teams from the Regional FINALIST pool, seems like a “bridge” to start to laying track for the coming District Model for the rest of FRC FIRST.
IMHO… when the District Model becomes dominant, IRI will rise even further in relevance and prestige… UNLESS Districts are able to build a stable of super-capable teams to feed to CHAMPIONSHIP like they’ve done in Michigan.