How many of those teams are from districts and haven’t had a chance to qualify yet? For example, 1114 is only 6 points shy of the Ontario qualifying points from last year. If they show up at the district championship and win a few matches, they’ll qualify. 67 is about 30 points short of last years FIM qualifying points. If they get picked as a second pick, they’ll qualify (and who really thinks they’ll be a second pick).
804 slots for dual champs
21 HOF = 2.6%
7 Original/sustaining= 0.8%
29 Waitlist = 3.6%
I see no problem with the 21 HOF teams as they represent a minor portion of all slots. The only issue i see is if they start handing HOF’s out like candy. Same with the 7 O&S.
As for the lottery waitlist most teams can’t afford another. Those that can or are nearby can get a great experience.
I do think waitlist should prioritize younger teams with highest rookie seed and certainly should bump those teams up on the waitlist. I also think teams that have never been to champs also should get a bump up on waitlist priority if they enter into the lottery list.
In essense, all teams should get the co-champ experience at some point if they desire it.
I don’t expect FIRST to hand out qualifications to new original and sustaining teams “like candy” because it’s not 1992.
3 is the current process for CA, sorta. HoF teams are eligible to compete again 5 years after their induction.
HoF status has no bearing on EI (they are distinct awards after all). In fact, one of the EI winners at CMP last year was a HoF member, 27 won the Daly EI award.
Did they bring you back to hold up the draft pick sign? 
Sorry, I was going off spotty memory and spot checking the awards database. FIRST’s team info page seems to leave out division awards, so I missed that. It still seems like a pretty rare occurance for HoF teams to win Chairman’s or EI after going HoF, even though they have a strong history of winning both before that.
Not to mention 3132 winning EI at SVR last week, after becoming a HoF team last year.
Hypothetical question to think about: What if FIRST for whatever reason chose to expand the definition (possibly with a change of terminology) to include all teams who have been sustaining for 25 years or more? Currently, this definition would only include OAS teams, but as seasons passed by, this number would expand slowly for the next 4 seasons (as there aren’t all that many 1992-1996 rookies currently competing), but by the 2023&2024 season would explode as there presently is a much larger pool of 1997&1998 rookies still around (and will probably be around by then). Would that count as handing out qualifications “like candy”?
Ya, I found that a little frustrating… I feel like there should be similar rules about that as when you win Chairman’s at Champs (can’t win again for some number of years after).
Clearly they already have amazing PR, maybe we should start recognizing other teams, too.
I think that the time has come to make HOF teams earn their way to Nationals just like other teams. If that doesn’t work for you how about giving the HOF teams a wild card once every 4 years. As stated previously most are great teams that would qualify anyway but give them some incentive to continue their great tradition.
Question: What happens if a “bad” team makes it to Worlds?
It seems that the main concern is that their robot performance won’t be on par with the competition, so what happens? They bring down some qual matches? They take up a slot that would have otherwise been assigned by a random number generator?
A flaw in the district system I have found is 2nd picks getting to many district points in elims. With the MAR district system all members of an alliance get 5 district points per elims win. Say robot “A” is a pretty good 2nd pick and gets picked as a 2nd pick for 2 events. Say they win one and get to finals in the other. That is 50 district points awarded to that team just for winning matches as a 2nd pick. What if a team becomes alliance #8 captains both comps and loses in quarters both times. They would not receive the 50 district points even though their robot is better performing then robot “A”.
That could get highly problematic, as you said, when the 1998+ rookies get added to the program. FRC Championships will likely need to expand more quickly to fit these extra teams without overloading on “free ride” teams (for lack of a better term, teams that don’t qualify by winning, awards, or district points)
Short answer: YES.
Random thoughts answer: what if the HOF teams were offered the chance to automatically attend the Championships if they completed some annual “renewal” process of their HOF status? Something as simple as lead a conference, or bring a rookie team, or SOMETHING in a leadership role that showcases why they’re a HOF team?
But really, just yes.
That already happens with the waitlist. At least HoF teams earned their “free ride”.
Like stated before, 10 of those teams are in District models, and at least 1 that isn’t has a regional left.
Last years data (I think):
21 total Hall of Fame teams recognized by FIRST
19 HoF attended a championship
13 HoF teams also qualified by their performance in the 2017 season
6* HoF teams qualified based on their HoF status alone
*Could argue possibly 5 because one team declined District Championship
I’d say bad robots rather than bad teams. At the very least, all the teams attending champs are well-funded, so it is easy enough to think that they have local supporters that see value in the team.
I attended champs with a waitlisted team last season, 3172, and we ended up 1-9. So I definitely understand a little about being on that end of things and the motivations. For them, it was a local supporter that wanted to see them compete past their regular single regional season. They had punched above their belt in regionals the last two years finishing 8th, but with fairly simple robots. Mixing in with the championship division teams I think was a fantastic experience for them but I also think that being on the losing end of so many matches is deflating. The quality of teams is so much higher in the divisions over a regional. I don’t think all the students were ready for it.
My own team, 1108, has been in the situation of attending champs with a underperforming robot 1-2 times with RCAs and again it is really about a team’s expectations. Bad robot performance can sour the experience for some and I know some that would almost rather not attend champs if they didn’t think the robot would be competitive. I’m totally in the other camp, that the whole experience is worth it and it can be completely inspiring and awesome if you go in with the attitude of a celebration with a competitive tournament, rather than just a competition.
Back onto HoF teams. I don’t care so much about the performance at champs, but I do care about what is healthy and sustaining for the HoF teams. I want them to be recognized but also to continue to succeed in their mission. I don’t want being inducted into the HoF to be their peak. So I guess the question is whether an automatic invite is healthy for that. I can only really approach this question from the context of my own team, who was the champs GP team in 2012, arguably a runner-up to CCA. While it would have been totally amazing to be a HoF team I think that competing to make championships does make us work to build a better program each year.
With the smallest number of non-qualifying HoF teams, this isn’t that important from a numbers standpoint. The % of qualifying HoF teams shows how awesome these teams continue to be even after their CCA. And not just using the competitiveness of their robots to continue their mission, many find new inspiration using their HoF status to motivate them to continue to change their culture. Maybe that is the true mark of a HoF team, one inspired not by success but by the mission itself.
Yes, yes, yes. The EI Award has nothing to do with Chairman’s, so let’s keep squashing that misconception. The awards are entirely separate, judged by a separate team of judges, and have a different judging process. Plus, the criteria for the awards are distinct from one another. They are both non-tech “outreach” awards, but there are distinct differences.
Chairman’s is about “significant measurable impact,” while EI focuses on advancing respect and appreciation for engineering." While both “outreach” oriented, they have distinct meanings and criteria.
First of all, there is a rule about Chairman’s. Once you win Chairman’s at champs, you can’t earn chairman’s again for 5 years. But why should earning the Chairman’s Award have anything to do with the Engineering Inspiration Award?
I’m curious to learn more. I know it sounds like a conflict of interest coming from a representative of the other HoF team from 2017, but because the awards are different, and the kids still work just as hard, why not recognize them? We don’t get upset when the world champions from the previous year win a regional again the following year (and Einstein champions automatically get a ticket to champs the following year). I’m not discounting anyone’s position or opinions, I’m just curious to learn more about why this is upsetting or frustrating when a HoF team wins a different award the next year.
I was once a member of a rookie/new team with aspirations for EI and the Hall of Fame (and worked diligently for 10 more years to get there) and I saw other teams recognized time after time. But it just made us work even harder still to surpass it.
Anya,
If they truly earned the award, shouldn’t they be recognized? Why give it to a less-deserving team?
With Regionals instead of districts, which robot would you say is a stronger robot: the 8th alliance captain or the 2nd pick on the 1st seeded alliance?
Waitlists don’t just pick up low quality robots. They pick up higher quality robots that just didn’t happen to be on the right side of the bracket in elims. In many cases, you’re weakening the competition by not allowing them in.