What would you change about IRI?

There are a couple of things that, personally, I feel could be improved with IRI. If anyone agrees, I’d love to hear what you think. And who knows? Maybe they’ll hear our input.

What are the things you want improved? You say you have a couple but then don’t list them… Hard for the IRI planning committee to take invisible suggestions.

I’d move it to the end of April, increase it to the top 300-400 robots on the planet, and call it the FRC World Championship.

It can stay in Indiana though it may need to move to a SLIGHTLY larger venue.


First off, I don’t want to attack or offend anyone in the IRI organization with this in any way. It is simply my opinion that I wish to put out there in hopes it is heard.

The big thing that I feel needs to be significantly improved is the selection process.
The first part of this is transparency. When you apply, there is no possible way to tell what the selection committee truly considers in the application. There is no indication what they weigh more heavily than other things. For example, it is unknown whether or not they rate robot performance or success higher. Let’s say a team does horribly, but get on the alliance that wins an event, does that rate you higher in their eyes than a robot who has an outstanding event statistically but just was overlooked in alliance selections? And is a win in a district event looked at the same as a regional win? There is literally no way for us (the community) to know what they’re looking for. So, if a team gets denied, then they are left wondering why they weren’t good enough. And if you ask what they look for, you simply get cryptic or extremely vague replies.
The other thing that I believe would be a benefit to change would be how they consider regional wins and district event wins. I touched on this in the previous paragraph, but I don’t feel that the selection committee considers wins in these events equal. We all know that winning at a regional allows a team to qualify for the Championship. However, there are some district events that are significantly more difficult to win at, but are not rewarded the same. Wish some simple statistical analysis, you can easily see that the average scores per match in some district events are significantly higher than those at some regionals. And yet, even when the team that won in the harder district event also has higher statistics overall, the team that won the regional is accepted into IRI while the district team was not. And simply because the district event win doesn’t allow the team to go to the Championship, the selection committee does not look at it as well.
The final change I feel needs to be instated is an objective measurement of teams. If there is already a truly subjective measure of teams already in place, then this point is completely moot, but the lack of transparency means that we have no idea. I believe that there needs to be an near-complete objective measurement system so that teams get evaluated the same based off their performance and not off their historical presence, since that is not fair to judge a current team’s ability using how teams did in the past.

What are y’all’s thoughts on what I outlined above?


I read this whole post as “my team didn’t get picked so the selection process is unfair”.

There needs to be some degree of ambiguity and anonymity to the selection process in order to protect the people that are on the selection committee. Nobody would sign up to do it if it meant that they would be creating a bunch of resentment towards themselves and their teams from people/teams that don’t get picked.


You are right, our team did not get picked, and yes I am frustrated at that fact. I understand that it looks like I’m just arbitrarily saying that the process is unfair because of my frustration. However, do you disagree? Do you feel that the system they have in place is perfect, or near-perfect?

And I respectfully am going to disagree with that last statement. If the process is fully transparent, or even more transparent than it currently is, the teams that get denied will be able to understand WHY they were not accepted and would have less reason to have resentment towards the committee members. If you applied for something, but then were rejected, but had no idea why you were rejected, wouldn’t that frustrate you?

[quote=“Ginger_Power, post:5, topic:359510, full:true”]

I read this whole post as “my team didn’t get picked so the selection process is unfair”.

There needs to be some degree of ambiguity and anonymity to the selection process in order to protect the people that are on the selection committee. Nobody would sign up to do it if it meant that they would be creating a bunch of resentment towards themselves and their teams from people/teams that don’t get picked.


Wouldn’t know

Never been invited

How should this specifically be done?

1 Like

It’s an offseason event. They are free to run their event however they see fit. There are a bunch of other offseason events you can compete in. How is this any different from non-IRI offseason events that fill up first come first serve?


Sounds the same to me. Which may be why the OP created the anonymous account. The selection committee has some criteria as described in other threads. 2019 IRI Invitation List


As someone who’s been invited to IRI four times between 2791 and 1257, I think I can say this without sounding like a sore loser: the IRI committee should be more transparent about the process they use to select teams. While they generally make the right picks, there are always at least a couple decisions every year that look a bit silly to an outsider, and insight on those decisions would be neat


I’m not certain how transparency really would provide much benefit. Maybe it would give people some feedback, but the feedback I get by not being selected does plenty too. We just have to do better.

Does the NCAA or CFB Playoff committee tell the public why certain bubble teams don’t make it into March Madness/CFB Playoff? Nope.

1 Like

The objectivity could be done by some kind of ranking numerically and calculating a team’s “value” based off their overall score.

For example, the team with the best game pieces per match gets a score of 100, the next best gets 99, and so on. Same thing could be done with how far they got in each of their respective events. There probably is some better way to tier teams in this way, but this method would be relatively quick and simple to implement.

1 Like

The IRI selection committee shouldn’t have to follow a rubric. It’s their event, and they should have the flexibility to invite who they want. Nobody is owed an explanation of why they weren’t selected.


Fair, but the entire point of the thread is to suggest things that IRI should do differently (in the eyes of the community). Of course they don’t have to follow these suggestions.


IRI prides themselves as being the “best of the best” of the given year. I don’t think it is even close to the same as a first-come-first-serve event. I totally get that it’s an offseason event, but since they select teams no matter when they apply, that makes it different from the other events.


Would OPR be applicable to decide who gets in?/s

Something to remember is that it’s the Indiana Robotics Invitational. There’s no qualification metric to get into this event whatsoever, it’s whoever the selection committee wants to invite. Generally, most of the teams in attendance are top-level teams, but the selection committee could invite 70 robots that barely move, and that would be their prerogative. The only explanation they need to give on selection is “This is who we wanted to invite this year”.


Alright. Here’s some advice, from someone who’s been in your position before, and has had time to reflect and look back. Don’t worry about it. It’s just an offseason event. Life will go on.

In 2016, my senior year, I wrote an application for our team to attend IRI. We had a rough first two district events with technical issues, so we didn’t go past the district level outside presenting for Engineering Inspiration. However, at our third district event, we ended up as the third alliance captain and won the event. I felt at the time of applying that our performance at that third event would be enough to get in, and that we could have the chance to compete at the highest level and prove ourselves that we “weren’t just a fluke”. I built myself up getting excited for a long time, thinking we could have a chance to prove ourselves at the highest level.

Then we didn’t get in. I was really upset. I had a lot of the same feelings you had for a while. I was angry, upset, and felt robbed. I was upset that I didn’t know exactly why we didn’t get in. I blamed a ‘narrative’ that we didn’t deserve our district win. I blamed the game, for making defense crossing more important in quals than in playoffs, where you could choose your partners to take on defenses, which caused me to place blame on OPR. I was bitter.

However, I decided to step back and think for a while about it. And I realized what I said earlier, that its not a big deal. Sure, you may not get to attend a hyper competitive offseason. However, in a few years, who’s going to care? I don’t think I’ve seen 2016 IRI talked about in a really long time. Unless something really out of the ordinary happens at 2019 IRI, I bet nobody’s going to talk about it in 2020. I’m not happy, persay that we didn’t get in, but I’m not angry. I just understand that we weren’t what that year’s selection committee was looking for. You will live, and you’ll grow to be okay with that decision. I hope this is somewhat helpful :slight_smile:

Just a side note, if anyone is reading this and are starting college apps this summer, keep a similar advice in mind. If you don’t get into your dream college, you can still be awesome and go on to do great things. The selection committee was just looking for something else.


Do teams typically bring back their graduated seniors for an off season event like IRI?