Since the Nats are going to be considerably smaller this year do you think that the regionals are going to be larger? I know my team is thinking about attending more than one regional this year. I know this is the norm for a lot of teams but it is do you think that more teams are going to attend more than one regionals this year in order to qualify for Nats?
FIRST has to realise that by making the Nats smaller, it does not necessarily solve all thier problems!
I think that the regionals will be getting larger, that s the only way that i can think that the Nationals will be smaller.
I think this might be a record for thread resurrection. :eek:
There have been nine FRC seasons since Elgin asked the question. We’ve seen the transition from “Nationals” in the Epcot parking lot to the FIRST Championship in huge sports arenas. Regional competitions have increased greatly in number, if not in size.
I believe this year’s push toward more matches for each team was the right thing to do, and it shows that larger competitions are not necessarily a good thing.
Holy thread resurrection Batman! :ahh:
Well, since this thing has been raised from the grave already and is craving brains I will give it some of mine. Yay Zombie Thread.
I am not sure if a smaller Championship would lead to bigger regionals but I know that smaller regionals lead to a bigger Championship. The min size of CMP is equal to 7*Regionals (4 champions, 1 EI, 1 CA, 1 Rookie).
This means that for a number of teams N there must N/40 regionals. (I am going to pick 40 as a size since it is FiM’s size) or 43 regionals. This means the minimum size of CMP is 301. Now, if we decrease the size to 30 that number grows significantly to 397. This also assumes that all teams go to 1 regional and ignores 2 tier systems like FiM.
Using that logic (more smaller regionals creates a larger CMP) we can actually see that the converse must be true. If I cap CMP at 200 teams (4 divisions of 50) it means there can be at most 200/7 (28) regionals meaning we would have to have 1700/28 (61) teams at each regional. Also we can see that, as FRC gets bigger, regionals must scale linearly with team number.
You have an unstated assumption regarding the number of matches played at a regional. If you’re going to do a mathematical treatment, you need to make that assumption explicit. Better yet, derive it based on more basic parameters like the duration of the regional, the average time between matches, the number of teams playing each match, etc. The average time between matches depends in turn on match duration, field reset and robot synch time…and the number of fields being used. I think the 2006 Greater Toronto Regional was doing about four minutes between match starts, alternating between two fields so one match could be setting up while another was still underway.
Good points, I’ll redo the calculations tonight when I have more time. Thanks.
I read this thread and got scared that FIRST made an announcement about a smaller Championship…
who says nationals will be smaller?
It was an announcement made back in 2001, do you not remember?
I’ve always felt that the Championship event should have more of an IRI field of teams. I understand that the Championship event is an amazing experience and to ‘punish’ teams that struggle to build even a robot that runs isn’t fair but I wish the Championship event was the best of the best.
Give teams something to strive for. Do some kids in college football play 4 years without ever playing in a bowl game, yup. And yeah that kinda sucks but I think our Championship event should have the best teams in the world, not just the teams that can afford it.
I’m not trying to be rude to the teams that were there and didn’t have great seasons but let’s be honest, there were teams there that didn’t win a match at their regionals. That to me is a sign the system is a bit flawed. I’ll be the first one to say that our robot probably didn’t deserve to be at the Championship Event a couple years if it weren’t for Chairmans. IDK i’m just thinking out loud.
I have to agree here. As I recall they’re going to begin cutting back on the amount of “automatic” spots allowed. I’m for this. Well, sort of.
In 2009, our team didn’t even make eliminations during Hartford. We still went to Atlanta. It was an amazing experience unlike any other, and we made it to the quarter finals. I know I would’ve been really upset if our team didn’t go. But still, in the end, Championships are Championships.
I still want there to be a way for teams that maybe don’t quite make it all the way to get to experience the thrill, however. After all, it was only after going to Atlanta the first time that I really fell in love with FIRST. To deprive that from students just because their team may not be the best of the best would be detrimental to the program. Maybe have two divisions? Like, a field or set of fields for regional winners only (Chairman’s winners can come play too :]), and another for the other people? There is a downside in that the “others” wouldn’t get to really experience the thrill of playing with some of the top teams. But it would allow them to go to Atlanta and give the top teams the matches they more deserve.
I don’t know, like Justin I’m also just thinking out loud and my thoughts aren’t 100% organized at all times.
7*Regionals + 15 Hall of Fame Teams + 7 Sustaining Teams from 1992 + 3 Last Year’s Champions + 1 Last Year’s EI Award Winner
There’s some overlap between the pre-qualified teams, but its a few more than 7*regionals.
Andrew, it’s 6* Regionals. The only case where there would be a 4th Champion would be the rare case where the Champion pulls in a backup team. That happens maybe once or twice per year, and can easily be covered by duplication elsewhere, or a Champion not being able to go (which happens more than you might think).
6* Regionals + 15 + 7 + 3 +1 - overlap +18 (the MI contingent)
For overlap, we’ll assume none, other than 2 Legacy teams also being HOF. (I think that’s the right number…)
Assuming that the number of regionals (not counting districts and not counting MSC as a regional) remains the same for next year, that’s 42 pre-qualifiers/MI teams + 6*43 regionals = 300 slots, minimum, with only previously known overlap. Currently, the Championship is running about 340 teams.
Given that 1-2 new regionals are typically added per year, and the number of HOF teams goes up by one per year, (so the team count goes up by 13 per year), I give it 4 years before the minimum has to be the current size, or the qualification system gets tweaked again.
Second assumption: about 30-40 teams manage to get doubly qualified every year, either through multiple event wins or through EI/RAS/RCA combined with an event win. (Or through special circumstances.) That’s another 30-40 slots available. 8 years before there’s a tweak, maximum, assuming constant growth rate.
More small regionals means either bigger championship, or more districting systems popping up sending X teams apiece.
Fewer big regionals means smaller championship, or more open registration slots. However, a number of regionals are already crowded. So you almost have to add more… which adds to the more regional question.
Either way, I predict that inside of a decade, open registration for the Championship will be extremely limited unless there is some major change to the qualification system. I suspect that that change will be similar to MI’s district system, when it comes.