We’ve now experienced two years of the new qualification system for The Championship Event, implemented in direct response to the rapid growth in the number of participating teams.
The qualification criteria have placed a bias upon a robot’s performance, making it valuable, but still offer opportunities for team’s to qualify, irrespective of their machine’s capability.
Question of the Week 6-01-03: Have the new qualification criteria “raised the bar” in The Championship Event? Has the event become more competitive as a result of its admission of only certain teams, or are there adequate procedures in place to ensure that winning isn’t paramount to a team’s ability to compete successfully at the Championship Event?
As someone who’s never really paid much attention to the competitions themselves, particularly in The Championship, I’m interested in seeing if people think that it’s become more competitive in recent years and if that’s a positive change.
I don’t think the change from open registration to “qualifying” registration was done to increase competitiveness. But rather, to stem to excessive growth of the championship event.
Since registration is still “open” (just to half the number of teams per year), I don’t believe that the competitiveness of the championship has changed.
The most profound change on competitiveness at The Championship has been the increasing number of competitive teams.
However, the atmosphere at regionals has changed. Teams that need to qualify in order to attend the Championships are focusing more attention on winning the competition then I’ve seen in previous years.
*Originally posted by Andrew *
**I don’t think the change from open registration to “qualifying” registration was done to increase competitiveness. But rather, to stem to excessive growth of the championship event.
**
Well, that was the reason, but I think it still has had some effect on the competitiveness of the event. The competition has gotten a little more stiff since the change, but it still remains fairly open. Since the odd/even still allows a lot of teams in, the competitive nature is not as great as it could be in a qualification-only system.
One thing I do think it does is increases the prestige of being able to attend. As it becomes harder to qualify for the Championship, the honor of being one of the 280 or so teams there will increase. I think it also makes teams more grateful for the chance to attend. When anyone could go, it wasn’t as big of a deal. I know last year, though, my team wasn’t pre-qualified, and so we put in an incredible amount of effort to ensure that we would make it, and ended up winning the Buckeye Regional and qualifying. When we got to Nationals, we appreciated it a lot more than we did the year before, when we had just signed up. It felt a lot more special to know that we got in on merit, not just on team number.
So, I think that things are slowly moving in that direction, though it still remains open. As the Championship becomes more selective, which it surely will, the level of competitiveness required to qualify will definitely make the Championship more competive.
*Originally posted by Andrew *
**
However, the atmosphere at regionals has changed. Teams that need to qualify in order to attend the Championships are focusing more attention on winning the competition then I’ve seen in previous years. **
I definately agree with you there. Before, a lot of teams used Regionals as simply extra time to work on the robot and didn’t really care about winning or loosing. Now that they have to win in order to go on, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a team that isn’t trying their hardest to win. On the other hand, this widens the gap between those teams that can afford two regionals and those that can’t since 2-regional teams are generally better prepared by their second one, giving them somewhat of an “unfair” advantage when it comes to qualifying for nats.
–Rob
P.S. Please don’t turn this into a debate over whether allowing teams to go to two regionals is fair. That’s not the intention of this thread, nor is it the intention of this post. If you want to debate it with me, PM/AIM/email me instead.
When we got to Nationals, we appreciated it a lot more than we did the year before, when we had just signed up. It felt a lot more special to know that we got in on merit, not just on team number.
Although I have always appreciated what it takes to get to Nationals (I’ve had to raise the funds, make the travel arrangements, etc), few of my team members really showed much appreciation for what it took to get there.
This year, we came within a gnat’s eyelash of qualifying, and the team really put a -lot- more into getting there. I consider this a good thing and have even considered requiring us to qualify even if we are pre-qualified.
So, I think that things are slowly moving in that direction, though it still remains open. As the Championship becomes more selective, which it surely will, the level of competitiveness required to qualify will definitely make the Championship more competive.
This will probably be true when, say, 200 out of 280 slots have to be secured through qualifying. However, the current situation may make the Champs less competitive. Teams which nearly qualify, but don’t, or which qualify but cannot raise the necessary funds on short notice, don’t attend.
Houston was the first nationals that I went to because i only got involved with FIRST last year about 1/2 way through build season so I may be completly wrong in what i think since i dont really know much about how the championship works. we are an odd number team so we did not have to “qualify” by winning a regional or winning awards, but we got to the semifinals of our division (granted we were drafted but in my opinion we played a major role in advancing our alliance and we had some bad luck in the qualifying rounds, i.e. missing a match). so i dont think that it makes the championship any less competetive if you dont get to nationals by winning a regional. we are one of those teams that only has just enough money to make it to one regional and national (if we’re extremly lucky), and even then, we didint cover all the costs of this year. I’m not complaining or anything, we had a blast in Houston so that’s enough for us if we cant go to nationals again before we graduate. but we really want to go next year because our team changed so much between last year and this year, it really is unbelievable, and we can only get better. so since the championship will be open to even teams, we will have to win a regional to even qualify to go. so we are feelin the need to win next year. i mean, our team is always competetive and i think everyone wants to win, but we are happy with whatever happens and we learn and have fun no matter what. ok, so those are my thoughts about the championship. sorry if i have misunderstood things about the championship, i am still pretty new at it.
Qualification hasn’t made the Championship more competetive.
However, when FIRST decided to limit the number of teams going to the Championship, they made thier reason clear: there wasn’t enough room for all the teams that wanted to go.
Based on this, we can see that the purpose of the qualification system for the Championships wasn’t to improve the quality of the game, but to make the event smaller. They did accomplish this goal.
If you would like to make the Championship more competetive, you need to remove the even / odd system and make it purely qualification. Only teams who qualify in year XX can go to year XX’s Championship Event (with the obvious exception of previous champions and Chairman’s Award winners). The qualification system would need to be revised.
Possible qualifying requirements:
1). Any team who played on an alliance that went to the Semifinals at any event. (This way you can’t qualify just by being picked. You have to earn it with success in the elimination matches.)
2). Any team who finishes in the top XX% during the qualification rounds. (This number can be tweaked according to how many teams have registered in FIRST, how many regionals there are, and how much room there is at the Championship event.)
3.) Any team who wins a Regional Award. (This helps to emphasize the parts of FIRST that aren’t about competition.)
4.) Any previous champions or Chairman’s Award winners.
These criteria would improve the competition at the Championship event, but it won’t happen unless this becomes FIRST’s goal.
In my opinion, I would hate for the qualification to be based on that.
(That being a possibility that George1083 just suggested:
1). Any team who played on an alliance that went to the Semifinals at any event. (This way you can’t qualify just by being picked. You have to earn it with success in the elimination matches.)
I dont mean to shy away from the competativeness of FIRST, but imagine how many teams would be crushed when they are booted out of nats in the quarterfinals of their regionals.
I personally like the current set up beucase it achieves the goal of limiting the size of the event but allows for those competative teams that did win regionals or who received awards for their other merits to go to nats. I think where competativeness has increased is at the regional level. I know for the Firebirds, we will do everything in our power to raise funds for next year’s nats even though we are an odd team, and we will be very competative at our regional so that we can attend. I think that this level of competativeness is good because it only gives more teams the opportunity to compete at nats, but does not take away other teams’ opportunity to as well.
*Originally posted by George1083 *
**
If you would like to make the Championship more competetive, you need to remove the even / odd system and make it purely qualification. Only teams who qualify in year XX can go to year XX’s Championship Event (with the obvious exception of previous champions and Chairman’s Award winners). The qualification system would need to be revised.
**
Trend has it that Nationals can hold 300 teams. This year, half of 800 is 400… so I guess many of the odd teams out there just couldn’t afford it. If growth in FIRST continues as it has been… we will have around 1000 teams next year, and around 500 of them would be automatically eligable for the event. Meaning, they either have to make Nationals bigger… or change the system to being “purely qualifying.”
*Originally posted by Fireboidsgrl * I dont mean to shy away from the competativeness of FIRST, but imagine how many teams would be crushed when they are booted out of nats in the quarterfinals of their regionals.
Let me direct you, then, to my second method of qualification:
*[Originally posted by George1083[/i] 2). Any team who finishes in the top XX% during the qualification rounds. (This number can be tweaked according to how many teams have registered in FIRST, how many regionals there are, and how much room there is at the Championship event.)
If the team showed prowess in the quals, but not good enough to be in the top 8, they would still qualify under this system.
I think I was unclear in my original post. I meant for these 4 to be combined into one system, not as an “either / or” thing. A team can prove they can win in the elims (1), they can prove they are good in the qualification rounds (2), they can prove that they are good at some other aspect of FIRST (3), or they already have proven themselves (4). These 4 methods were meant to cover all of the bases in allowing teams to qualify.
PS: I’m sorry, M, if this isn’t the direction in which you wanted this thread to go. PM if if you’d rather I start up a separate thread.*
The qualification criteria have placed a bias upon a robot’s performance, making it valuable, but still offer opportunities for team’s to qualify, irrespective of their machine’s capability.
Question of the Week 6-01-03: Have the new qualification criteria “raised the bar” in The Championship Event? Has the event become more competitive as a result of its admission of only certain teams, or are there adequate procedures in place to ensure that winning isn’t paramount to a team’s ability to compete successfully at the Championship Event?
**
The qualification has NOT raised the bar. All it has done is make it harder for teams to get to the Nationals. The competition is still the same.
What the process DID do is make it impossible for those teams who did qualify during the last weeks of the season actually get to the event. It is nearly impossible to arrange a major trip for a whole team in a few weeks let alone the 4 days given the last week’s winners this year.
ALL teams should go to the Nationals. It is a prime motivator for the kids to work on their teams. It is a lot more than just a robot contest. And I thought that that was a big part of what FIRST is all about- motivation. The challenge to qualify to be there should be the ability to pull together as a team and raise the extensive funds needed to get there.
So- in closing- did the qualification process mean that the best robots actually got to the Nationals? No way. A lot from the end of the season spent their time in crates (some damaged) on the way home from the last week of regionals.
[quote]*Originally posted by George1083 *
**Qualification hasn’t made the Championship more competetive.
However, when FIRST decided to limit the number of teams going to the Championship, they made thier reason clear: there wasn’t enough room for all the teams that wanted to go.
So the answer is- find a place or develop a system that can handle all of the teams that want to go. Not easy but not impossible.
The answer is NOT to discourage kids by disqualifying them because they have the wrong team number and aren’t fortunate enough to have a well supported team.
**