What happens to district points with teams attending their 3rd event?

I am specifically wondering how teams attending their 3rd competition effect the teams only at their 2nd.

For example:

Troy #2 has 6 teams attending it as their 3rd competition. For arguments sake lets say they take rank 1-6 after qualifications. Now since they cant accumulate points towards state rankings, what happens to the district points that would have been awarded to those teams?

Do the points get passed down to the next eligible team or are they forfeit? What about playoff performance and alliance selection position?


If I understand the rules correctly it would be similar to what happens when teams attend out-of-district events: the points disappear.


We asked fim iteself about this all those points poof.


Seems like that really hurts any team attending only their second event.


I think everything past 2 matches point wise are practice. In the same breath, I don’t think that a team that has done two competitions should be allowed to be considered alliance captains…or a banner.

IF they are already going to district championships…Why not let someone else win something. Can winning more than 2 district/regional banners be GP?

I know that I am not wording it right…I know that some teams go outside of their district/region to strengthen their team…I get it. To what end? You have a great bot…you won your first two events…Why do you have to stop someone else from getting a banner (if this is the case)? I think it is unGP…I could be wrong.


The points vanish. It actually helps lower the points cutoff for advancing to the district championship. The more points these teams eat, the less points get handed out to other teams, the less points needed to advance. If you’re a team often on the “bubble” of advancement you’d want to root for teams that already have enough points that they’re advancing, teams that have won chairmans, teams that are playing a 3rd play, teams visiting from another district, ect. Basically any way you can make points vanish is good.


I view it differently. If those 6 teams were only attending their second event, the remainder of teams at Troy 2 would still be getting the same amount of points. So, in essence, it doesn’t really impact the other teams at that district qualifier event.

Who it does impact are the “bubble teams” not attending that event, in that the more points that “vanish” helps lower the cutoff to reach district championship.

There are arguments to be made regarding the types of teams that tend to have the resources to attend a 3rd event, and how those resources combined with past event experience can create an advantage compared to teams at their second event. But the latter half of that statement also applies (perhaps even more so) to teams at their second event competing against their first event.


This quite simply is not correct.

Lowering the point total does not make anyone else (not at this competition) potential of making states any easier or harder.

This is because the district points are a ranking, you need to finish in the top 160. The number itself doesn’t actually matter except to rank you.

So it should be obvious, that a team that is not at the competition (with 3rd timers) ranking order can’t change just because not all the points for another competition are put in the pool. Their spot stays the same.

And here’s the rub, the team doing their 2nd competition at the one with 3rd timers doesn’t change either since they are getting the points that they earned – despite the points for the 3rd comp teams disappearing. The team with a 3rd competition didn’t take your points, you didn’t earn them.

Go make a copy with the spreadsheet at this post and convince yourself: Historical FIM points since 2017

One could advocate that the third timers shouldn’t be allowed to come at all to make your competition is easier. Then you would get more points by default, but that isn’t G.P.

The proper solution, of course, is for every team that has a third competition for their points at all their competitions to count, but they all get scaled by 2/3 (or 1/2 if they somehow do four)



I never claimed that it could, at least in the upward direction. A team not at the event is expected to move down, which in fact is changing the ranking order. I claimed that the team that is the last to advance needs less points to achieve that last place rank.

Take the mid atlantic region for example -

Lets use team 2180 in 53rd rank as an example. You’re correct, they can not move up. But lets imagine every single robot at the remaining events next weekend were 3rd plays, out of district, already advancing, ect. They wont move DOWN. Because they wouldn’t move down, they would hold on to their rank and advance to district champs. Normally this cutoff happens at around ~55 points for the FMA district, but since all the robots competing next week in this scenario are eating points, wow! 2180 is in with just 48! and so is 6945 even with 45!

Now obviously not all teams at the last two events will meet that criteria, and its looking a little rough for 2180 holding on. But you can see how the more of these teams are at that event, the higher the chance 2180 has of holding on to their rank, and thus the points cutoff has been lowered.

Couldn’t agree more with this, well worded.

tl;dr, I never mentioned the word rank. I just said the points needed, and thus how far teams need to get in district play, is lower.


Keep in mind that 3rd play teams are also eligible for most judged awards. If you look at the PNWs Salem event a few days ago, four of those awards went to third play teams, lowering the number of points distributed at that event. That’s also not taking into account alliance draft and playoff performance points absorbed by third play teams.

Also notable: the 3rd seed alliance was comprised of three third-play teams, and they ended up winning event finalist.

I would love to see an update where third play teams could participate but not be eligible for judged awards and limited to quals only, since there should be enough teams to fill the playoff alliances.

1 Like

Are you sure you’d want some teams to be treated differently than others within an event? Even if your goal was to give other teams an unearned boost in points, this seems excessive. To DQ a team from the playoffs seems unnecessarily punitive.

Furthermore, I’m not sure that it would be good policy to discourage third plays - which is exactly what would happen if you told teams that they can’t play in the eliminations. In the PNW district, we’ve historically had some events where you really need teams on their third event to round out the field. For example, we had a 25-team event late in the season last year. And I know that more than one of them was at their third event.


Other than the experience of getting to play more matches - what’s the goal of a third event? The teams can’t earn points towards DCMP so it’s just “for fun” anyways - correct?

There are a number of different things that a team might like to do at their third event. Fun is definitely one of them, but also practice to improve their driving, or to prove out robot changes, or to get the students more comfortable running an alliance selection or try out different match strategies. They can also be used as a time to give students other than the primary drive team a chance to drive the robot.

But just sticking on the fun for a minute, if your quals rank doesn’t do anything then suddenly there aren’t any stakes on the qualification matches. And if you can’t select or decline a selection, then suddenly there’s not a need to make a pick list, and a lot of the purpose of scouting has gone out the window.

Also, other teams at the event who might really like to have one of the third-play teams as an alliance partner don’t get to play with them in the eliminations.

1 Like

No comment, but I’ll link this similar thread from a few years ago

Actually, it helps ALL bubble teams. Big brain move, if you’re on the bubble you should sign up for a 3rd event and burn as many of those points as possible lest they go to someone who could jump you in the rankings and push you below the cutoff for DCMP.
If you don’t succeed, well, at least you got the 3 event season you were hoping for, but if you do succeed, make sure you still have enough money to attend DCMP :upside_down_face:

I don’t know about this… Especially with the mindset of my above scenario I think a pretty good argument could be made that they took them. Someone has to be first seed, someone has to win the imagery award, if you are the best 2nd play team qualified to do those things and a 3rd play team signs up for the event at the last minute with the express purpose of making sure they get those honors (and points) for themselves (so they can burn them) that feels a lot like taking them to me. Now remove the somewhat contrived malicious intent, it’s still probably going to feel the same way to that 2nd play team.


Not having contemplated this topic much, it seems like the bottom line is 3rd event teams are needed to help populate later and/or more remote district events, and the rules about awarding points are set up to try to be as fair as possible under the circumstances. I assume a team needing their second event always is accepted into a given event before 3rd event teams.

This week’s PNW Auburn event we’re attending will have 31 teams, but the count would be reduced by 5ish with no 3rd event teams. I’m personally looking forward to seeing those teams this weekend.


I agree that sometimes more remote events need more participants. But it is not necessarily true later events have a lack of participants. On the contrary, many teams would prefer a later event simply because they now have more build/practice time.

Remember, teams attending a 3rd event didn’t necessarily pick that event as their 3rd choice. It might have been their first choice to attend, it just happened to be in Week 5. Then they chose a Week 2 event second. When extra event signup opened up, they saw that there was a Week 3 event that they could attend, so they signed up. Yes, that means the Week 5 event is now “extra” for them and doesn’t count for their points. But they had no way of knowing that would be the case when they originally signed up for the event.

3rd event teams appear in later weeks only because their first 2 events count. No one could be at their third event in Weeks 1 or 2.



However, in Michigan, there ARE some teams that played BOTH their second and their third events in Week 4.

My team couldn’t do a third competition and it would have been for fun, mostly; the best we can do is root for the top teams to stay the top teams so we stay above the 160th place (in Michigan).

Small comments about other points made by others above:

Plenty of exhibition games are played in sports; the score is kept and the professionals get paid so why not let robotics teams enjoy their ranking even if they are there just for the exhibition.

And a comment about teams entitled to be rewarded higher if only the better teams hadn’t butted in to play as an exhibition doesn’t always have a precedence. My wife was the lone entry in a county fair category - she got 2nd place.

(Sorry if this was mentioned or in a linked thread, quick skim here)

What’s wrong with redistributing points the 3rd play teams earn proportional to some metric or some normalization scheme to limit impacts on 2nd play teams at the event?

Teams on the bubble, while part of the greater system, are benefiting purely as a bonus. 2nd play teams at the event absolutely can have their chances hurt through 3rd play teams, especially since 3rd play teams I would suspect to be better funded and more likely to be “better” at the game. Therefore making the match schedule more difficult.

Just some morning thoughts…