The Society for More Qualifying Rounds

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST

Okay, here is the deal:
This is a long message, but I hope you will stick with me on this one.

Motorola had 10 qualifying rounds: great
California had 12 (I think) qualifying rounds: even better
Florida had 12 qualifying round: even better two
Philly had 6 qualifying rounds: not even close to enough

I don’t know how many will be at the New England and Mid-Atlantic, but I guess that it will be 10 or 12.

Great Lakes will likely have 6 : Again, not even close to enough

Now, on to the Nationals:

Usually reliable sources claim that the current plan is to have only 4.

I ask you, 4?

They may as well just throw darts to pick the top 8.

I am serious, very serious. Think about it. A top 20th percentile team (i.e. a very good team) has a 1 in 5 chance each match of being partnered with a bottom 20th percentile team (i.e, a not very good team). In this case, the good team is essentially playing 2 on 1. So far so good.

Now, what chance is there that a top 20th percentile team will be paired with nothing but bottom 20th percentile teams for all their qualifying matches? It is approximately (1/5)^4 or 1 in 525.

This doesn’t sound too terrible until you realize that there are 40 top 20th percentile teams. Essentially, one time in 13, the situation will occur. Not too bad of odds, you say, it will only happen on average once in every 13 FIRST Nationals, and that one time, the team will most likely be picked up by one of the top 8.

Yes and no. In a field of 200 teams, it is going to be very hard to stand out of the crowd, especially if you lost every match and are very poorly ranked.

The situation gets worse when you realize that only 3 such nightmare matches are likely enough to spoil any chance such a team has at making it into the top 8.

The chances of this are considerably more discouraging: 4 X (1/5)^3 or about 1 chance in 30.

With there being 40 top 20th percentile teams in a 200 team tourney, FIRST is virtually assuring that the randomness of the seeding will keep one or two team that might otherwise have a legitimate shot at the top 8.

The story gets worse when you ask yourself how many middle of the road teams (say 20th percentile to 80th percentile) have great tournaments simply because they end up with three or more top 20th pecentile teams for partners.

Again, the odds are 1 in 30, but in a 200 team tourney, there are 120 teams in the middle! At the Nationals, 4 of these middle teams have a legitimate chance to make it to into the final 8 just because they were lucky enough to have 3 more great partners!

The only solution is to have more qualifying rounds.

I feel that this is a serious threat to the integrity of the Nationals.

I hope that there is time to change the plan for the Nationals.

I urge you to “write your congressperson.”

Joe J.

P.S. Note that the proposed plan is a step back even from prior Nationals. They are proposing FEWER matches at the Nationals than they had last year. Not only fewer for all teams (all teams had at LEAST 6 matches in prior years – 4 seeding round and a minumum of 2 in the tourney) but fewer overall matches! Note that while there are 33% more teams at the Nationals this year (~200 vs. ~150), but this year’s format lets 33% more teams play each round. Therefore, by having most teams only have 4 matches at the Nationals rather than 6, FIRST is actually proposing a reduction in the absolute number of matches of over 33%. This is progress?

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Nate Smith, Student on team #74, Holland FIRST Robotics, from Holland High School and Haworth, Inc…

Posted on 3/14/99 8:07 PM MST

In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:

Well, if you figure 8 hours of competition on Friday(480 minutes), with an average of 7-8 minutes per round(with scoring time), and the 3 stages like they had last year…that gives you a total of about 180 rounds…

If you figure in 4 teams per round and roughly 200 teams, that figures out to right around 3 per team on friday alone

Then there’s saturday…with only 8 alliances competing in elims, that gives most of the day for more qualification rounds…without a definite Florida agenda posted, let’s say that qual rounds run from 9 to about 2, with an hour in there for lunch…that’s another 4 hours(240 min)…which comes out to about another 90 rounds

So, on saturday, that gives each team, on average, about another 2 rounds…for about 5 overall

So, if i did the math right(it’s late and i’m tired), that’s only 5 qual rounds, which does seem awfully low…does anyone else see possibly another stage making an appearance in '99?

one more stage does this to the math…

total rounds: 360
total rounds * teams per round: 1440
average rounds per team(assuming 200 teams): 7.2

just one of the many ways to solve this problem…

Nate

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Jason, Coach on team #252/254, Bay Bombers/Cheesy Poofs, from Broadway High and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/14/99 9:26 PM MST

In Reply to: Only 4 qual rounds in florida? posted by Nate Smith on 3/14/99 8:07 PM MST:

The First problem is this:
Nate, you are right - 4 fields would make a difference over the three from last year. However, I have been told that they are actually reducing the fields this year. The main reason we are only being allowed 4 qualifying matches is that THERE WILL ONLY BE 2 FIELDS AT THE NATIONALS. It seems this is a done deal, so we can count on only 4 qualifying matches - maybe 5 at the most.

I agree with Joe, in that with such a format, it is basically pot luck as to which 8 teams finish at the top. I would expect that the level of luck needed will be even more than what Joe expressed, because I think with 200 teams having only four matches each, the 8 top teams will all HAVE to win ALL 4 qualifying matches. There will be too many teams winning 3 and 4 matches. One bad pairing will knock out a top 8 team.

I am sure that FIRST has some pretty good reasons why they can not fit in more than 4-5 qualifying matches, as unfortunate as this is. However, if this is the case, I have a proposal that I know others have made and that FIRST has discussed. The present format almost guarantees that finishing in the top 8 will now be more a result of luck than ability - maybe not at a regional with 30-50 teams, but definitely at a National with 200 teams. Because there are 200 teams instead of 30-50, the playoffs should be expanded to include the top 16 teams (or maybe 12 with the top 4 seeds getting byes). Once allies have been chosen, that will mean that the top 32 (or 24) teams (about the top 12-15%)still get a chance to prove themselves and compete against each other.

After all, the main purpose is for the kids to have a great experience and feel like winners regardless of if they make the final 8. One of the things that impressed me when I observed last years competition (this is our first year), was that the kids would at least have a lot of matches before they were done. This year many kids will work months and travel across the country and maybe only have 4 matches (not to mention the amount of teams that will go 0-4, with more mathces at least every team is likely to get a win or two)

If the number of qualifying matches can be increased to 6-8, great. If not, I feel the number of teams making the playoffs should be expanded.

Anyway, I think Joe & Nate bring up a very good question. Just thought I’d throw my two cents in. See ya in Florida everyone.

Jason

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Jeff Burch, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Delco Electronics Systems.

Posted on 3/15/99 9:33 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: Only 4 qual rounds in florida? posted by Jason on 3/14/99 9:26 PM MST:

>> Jason Wrote:
: I have been told that they are actually reducing the fields this year. The main reason we are only being allowed 4 qualifying matches is that THERE WILL ONLY BE 2 FIELDS AT THE NATIONALS. It seems this is a done deal, so we can count on only 4 qualifying matches - maybe 5 at the most.

A third or even a fourth pair of playing fields doesn’t have to be expensive! Obviously the elimination rounds should be played on big stages with glitz and grandstands, but some of the qualifying rounds could just as easily be played on fields inside a tent (for weather) sitting on the parking lot. I’d gladly give up the big-screen TV and the lights and grandstands for twice as many qualifying rounds.

All they need is a basic setup like at the regionals with the ability to turn on and off power and a basic sound system to announce the teams and the results. I’ve got to believe a tent would be MUCH less expensive than the whole stage setup. I’d even be willing to accept a reduction in the maximum height requirement if necessary.

I agree it’s more fun to play on the big stages, but with two additional basic “non-stages” it’s a 50/50 shot for each qualifying round, and with the additional rounds you’re almost guaranteed a round or two in front of the crowds. It would be more difficult to scout the matches that take place inside the tent, but I think the additional matches would be worth it.

Am I missing something?

Jeff Burch

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Jason, Coach on team #252/254, Bay Bombers/Cheesy Poofs, from Broadway High and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/15/99 4:54 PM MST

In Reply to: Only 2 Fields? Who needs a grandstand? posted by Jeff Burch on 3/15/99 9:33 AM MST:

I agree with you. It seems like it could be done.

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Sean Perkins, Student on team #131, CHAOS- Central High and Osram Sylvania, from Manchester High School Central and Osram Sylvaina and Fleet Bank.

Posted on 3/14/99 9:28 PM MST

In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:

I wish to join the society, I hate seeing people getting screwed over,
everyone should have a FAIR chance at representing its team to its
fullest potential. oh yeah, i go with batman, all those cool tools rule.
I also want to see the house packed at Ct. Ill be showing all those die-
hard FIRST fans what a human player really is (once again Im trying to
get some fierce competition going)
Good Luck To All,
Hope we dont get snowed in,
PERK

: Okay, here is the deal:
: This is a long message, but I hope you will stick with me on this one.

: Motorola had 10 qualifying rounds: great
: California had 12 (I think) qualifying rounds: even better
: Florida had 12 qualifying round: even better two
: Philly had 6 qualifying rounds: not even close to enough

: I don’t know how many will be at the New England and Mid-Atlantic, but I guess that it will be 10 or 12.

: Great Lakes will likely have 6 : Again, not even close to enough

: Now, on to the Nationals:

: Usually reliable sources claim that the current plan is to have only 4.

: I ask you, 4?

: They may as well just throw darts to pick the top 8.

: I am serious, very serious. Think about it. A top 20th percentile team (i.e. a very good team) has a 1 in 5 chance each match of being partnered with a bottom 20th percentile team (i.e, a not very good team). In this case, the good team is essentially playing 2 on 1. So far so good.

: Now, what chance is there that a top 20th percentile team will be paired with nothing but bottom 20th percentile teams for all their qualifying matches? It is approximately (1/5)^4 or 1 in 525.

: This doesn’t sound too terrible until you realize that there are 40 top 20th percentile teams. Essentially, one time in 13, the situation will occur. Not too bad of odds, you say, it will only happen on average once in every 13 FIRST Nationals, and that one time, the team will most likely be picked up by one of the top 8.

: Yes and no. In a field of 200 teams, it is going to be very hard to stand out of the crowd, especially if you lost every match and are very poorly ranked.

: The situation gets worse when you realize that only 3 such nightmare matches are likely enough to spoil any chance such a team has at making it into the top 8.

: The chances of this are considerably more discouraging: 4 X (1/5)^3 or about 1 chance in 30.

: With there being 40 top 20th percentile teams in a 200 team tourney, FIRST is virtually assuring that the randomness of the seeding will keep one or two team that might otherwise have a legitimate shot at the top 8.

: The story gets worse when you ask yourself how many middle of the road teams (say 20th percentile to 80th percentile) have great tournaments simply because they end up with three or more top 20th pecentile teams for partners.

: Again, the odds are 1 in 30, but in a 200 team tourney, there are 120 teams in the middle! At the Nationals, 4 of these middle teams have a legitimate chance to make it to into the final 8 just because they were lucky enough to have 3 more great partners!

: The only solution is to have more qualifying rounds.

: I feel that this is a serious threat to the integrity of the Nationals.

: I hope that there is time to change the plan for the Nationals.

: I urge you to “write your congressperson.”

: Joe J.

: P.S. Note that the proposed plan is a step back even from prior Nationals. They are proposing FEWER matches at the Nationals than they had last year. Not only fewer for all teams (all teams had at LEAST 6 matches in prior years – 4 seeding round and a minumum of 2 in the tourney) but fewer overall matches! Note that while there are 33% more teams at the Nationals this year (~200 vs. ~150), but this year’s format lets 33% more teams play each round. Therefore, by having most teams only have 4 matches at the Nationals rather than 6, FIRST is actually proposing a reduction in the absolute number of matches of over 33%. This is progress?

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Wayne Wnuck, Engineer on team #177, Bobcats, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 3/14/99 9:29 PM MST

In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:

I hope FIRST heeds your advice. More than four matches are needed in a day and a half to sustain the thrill (frenzy?) of competition. This issue is only going to get worse as FIRST continues to grow. There has to be a sense that the best teams rise to the top.

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by The Carter, Student on team #131, CHAOS, from Manchester Central High School and Osram Sylvania.

Posted on 3/14/99 9:55 PM MST

In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:

Okie dokie, lookie here:

I agree with Joe Johnson, Perkman and co.
I’m down with this society… Qualifying rounds are a lot like a scientific
experiment… The more times you do something, the better data you’ll have assembled
to see who’s the best… Consistency is a key, and the more times you do something
the more consistent (or not consistent) you become at something…

Let us seperate the best from the best…
Like Darwin’s theory states “Survival of the fittest”
lets give us as many oppurtunities as we can to see just who the fittest are…

I’m waiting on some snow… where is it???

As always
–Keep it easy in netland

Dave “The” Carter

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/14/99 11:48 PM MST

In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:

At the NASA Ames regional my team’s 'bot didn’t work until match five. It then racked up enough points to boost it into 9th and finaly end the qualifying matches at 11th seed. We were then picked by the #1 seed and eventually were taken out of the runnings in the semifinals. If that had been Florida, we’d be out. My team would be devistated. Our robot wasn’t just a fancy looking paperweight, but that’s how it would have seemed after the fourth match. We’ve got almost six weeks before florida, and if that’s enough time to build a robot it seems as if it should be enough time to fix this problem!

I always lose at blackjack…
-Daniel

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 3/15/99 6:44 AM MST

In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:

Here’s another question to add to the discussion of whether Qualifying rounds at the Nationals will enable the best performing teams to have a shot. What percentage of Qualifying matches at the Regionals to date have wound up 2 on 1 because one of the four teams in a match was unable to field a running robot? It’s to be expected that some machines, some times, just will not be able to show up running in a particular time slot, and this pretty well stacks the deck against their hapless ally, no matter how good they are.

With perhaps 4 Qualifying matches in Orlando, one no-show by an ally pretty well dooms their partner team. If no-shows are a big problem, I’d like to see four lines leading up to each field with the teams sequenced according to a prepublished list. If any team is not in its place in the line when it’s time to stage up to the “on deck” position, that team forfeits their match, and the team behind advances to fill their place. This approach has a problem with cascading no-shows unless teams anticipate the need to step up and get in line earlier, but the teams who are ready to play are always guaranteed a functioning ally. Other ideas? Is this even a problem?

Dodd

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 3/15/99 7:15 AM MST

In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:

I agree with the top 16 teams being chosen instead of just 8. After all we are talking about a field of 200 at the “Nationals”. It should be bigger!
How about if they just have one or two practice matches and start the competition on Thursday afternoon. How do we go about making suggestions to FIRST?

The magic numbers for the regionals has been 81, 82 or 83. That is the number of total matches played. Apparently, that is what FIRST feels they can fit for the time given on 2 fields.
So, if there are 2 stages, they can fit 164 matches (using the magic number 82). This will allow 200 teams to each play 3.28 matches.
If three stages, then the number of matches is 246. This will allow 200 teams to each play 4.92 matches.

Raul

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/15/99 7:44 AM MST

In Reply to: Suggestions & More Math posted by Raul on 3/15/99 7:15 AM MST:

I agree for the most part, but the thought of taking only 2 practice matches seems a bit iffy. I’m not sure what the exact number is, but a good amount of teams don’t go to regionals. The practice day is a VERY critical part of the competition for these teams. My team has always improved drastically during the practice rounds and I’d hate to see a team held back because they’ve never had a chance to run their 'bot in that kind of environment. You’ve got to have noticed that the nationals are always quite different than driving your 'bot around some sterile shop. I know what it’s like; before this year my team has never had a regional and we go to the nationals and are railroaded (at the beginning) by teams that seem to have had TONS of practice. Because they had! It makes a difference…

I think the only good option is to up the number of arenas. Too bad that costs money – but hey, doesn’t everything nowadays?

-Daniel
GRT Student Co-Captain

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 3/15/99 4:18 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Suggestions & More Math posted by Daniel on 3/15/99 7:44 AM MST:

I understand your point.

I just thought that more matches would be more valuable than more practice.
Some other options:

shorten the practice matches from 10 minutes to 5 minutes or less. After all I’ve observed many teams that have a problem wind up spending a large amount of the time waiting for the match to end so they can fix what they just saw went wrong.
those who are known to have gone to regionals get less practice matches. No regional = 3 matches; 1 regional = 2 matches; 2 regionals = 1 match; 3 or more regional = 0 matches (if you go to the many regionals you probably prefer to just get on with the qualification rounds)
have a separate extra field/s that can be used for practice that is not officiated or maintained by FIRST staff. It could be off to the side and teams could get on a waiting list if the want extra practice time to debug problems.

Raul

: I agree for the most part, but the thought of taking only 2 practice matches seems a bit iffy. I’m not sure what the exact number is, but a good amount of teams don’t go to regionals. The practice day is a VERY critical part of the competition for these teams. My team has always improved drastically during the practice rounds and I’d hate to see a team held back because they’ve never had a chance to run their 'bot in that kind of environment. You’ve got to have noticed that the nationals are always quite different than driving your 'bot around some sterile shop. I know what it’s like; before this year my team has never had a regional and we go to the nationals and are railroaded (at the beginning) by teams that seem to have had TONS of practice. Because they had! It makes a difference…

: I think the only good option is to up the number of arenas. Too bad that costs money – but hey, doesn’t everything nowadays?

: -Daniel
: GRT Student Co-Captain

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 3/15/99 7:40 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Suggestions & More Math posted by Raul on 3/15/99 4:18 PM MST:

Those are great ideas. I’d be happy with a 5 min practice time, an off-to-the-side-but-fully-functional practice field, perhaps one preset practice time and the rest are first-come-first-served, and some qualifying matches on Thursday.

Maybe next year FIRST could add one day to the time between kickoff and shipping. We could all promise to use that only for practice day! :))

Ken

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Kate Leach, Student on team #166, Team Merrimack, from Merrimack High School and Unitrode / RS Machines.

Posted on 3/15/99 9:20 PM MST

In Reply to: Great suggestions posted by Ken Patton on 3/15/99 7:40 PM MST:

: Maybe next year FIRST could add one day to the time between kickoff and shipping. We could all promise to use that only for practice day! :))

Do you really think that if we were given another day for practice only teams would use it for practice? I know that a lot of teams are always staying up rather late come close to shipping finishing building the robot. I know that some teams get done early enough to get their practice time in, but most teams don’t. I think that extra day would go more towards finishing the robot as opposed to practicing driving it.

-KATe-

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 3/17/99 5:41 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Great suggestions posted by Kate Leach on 3/15/99 9:20 PM MST:

Kate, that was my attempt at sarcasm! Sorry it wasn’t obvious enough! :))

Ken

archiver · June 23, 2002, 10:04pm

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/15/99 11:28 AM MST

In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:

I think the solution here is to have more teams in the eliminations (I posted a message on this a couple of months ago). Due to space and time constraints, we’re not going to get more qualification matches. Therefore, I think we should get more teams in the elimination. Let’s say there will be 200 teams at nationals. This is roughly 4 times the number of teams at each regional. Therefore, I think they should have 4 times the number of teams in the eliminations. If they have enough stages, this really shouldn’t add much time onto playing the matches. Just picking the alliances will take a while.