I’ll bet a nice Cheezburger that at least 500 of those 1300 2008-2009 teams are in Asia.
And I’ll bet that a non-trivial number of the rest are our amigos and mates from Mexicon and NZ and … (it’s OK to not mention the Canadians - they are used to it :);)).
Now, keeping the above in mind, toss in that groups in 3-6 countries in Europe are sticking their toes into the VRC water, and…
You quickly come to the conclusion that we ought to be embarassed for thinking almost exclusively in terms of the USA’s 50 states when discussing how a supersized VRC tournament ladder might be organized. If we are going to offer serious advice, you/I/we need to think globally. Suggested methods need to explicitly span borders without falling apart.
Discuss…
Blake
PS: I picked Lyncas’ message to use as a quote, not be cause he was especially guilty, but because it was the first one I spotted 60 seconds ago when I needed one to quote from.
To me it makes sense that each country would need to work out their own system. Not every country is organized the same in terms of states and regions. I expect the best system would be for each country to be given a quota, a specific numbers of entries into the world championship. This would be based on the percentage of teams the country has.
Having heard about the world competition and the problem posed by only two divisions, yes it should be expanded to four.
If it grows even larger than that then we of course should take a look at large national or regional (multiple country) competitions to decide champions who will contest the world championship. Which reminds me of the Pan-Pacific Competition a few months ago (although I never participated in that because Vancouver + Seattle had their own competition).
In any case, I agree with gblake that we have to think international in scope. It’s just not growth in the US that might cause problems… it can also be growth in other places…
I agree that each country will work out a specific numbers game according to their region.
Currently the VEX system is very open to starting new regionals anywhere. Eventually the # of competitions and quality of events will be difficult for VEX to manage without a district model.
Serious question - Why are country borders the correct way to subdivide the world? What goal do you have in mind that is best served by separating the USA, Canada and Mexico along their borders. Same question for Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany?
Same question for anyone who has advocated using USA state boundaries to create subdividisons?
Another serious question - Why is a hierarchical tree of competitions the right way to discover the best teams?
There are more ways to skin this cat than are being discussed so far. Let’s hear some goals and some ingenious ways of attaining them.
Ok so I guess we’ll start with goals. The one interesting thing with this is are these our goals as a community or the goals of IFI and the VRC. Now because most none of us can speak for IFI we can only make guesses. I looked for a mission statement or something but couldn’t find one. I did however find this brochure on VEX robotics. So I’m taking goals from that flier. So I’ll start the list:
Goals from brochure:
-Stimulate Creative thinking in Students
-Educate students about STEM Values
-Give students something fun to do
To me these seem to be the core values for the VRC program. What do others think?
*Note: Since I couldn’t find a mission statement or anything this leads me to believe that maybe the VRC is something that we as a community are meant to shape.
One goal: Every registered team should have the opportunity to participate in some event within “reasonable distance”. This definition may vary – if a team is 8 hours from the nearest event, that event would be “reasonable distance” from them. On the other hand, if a rookie team is forced to drive 8 hours when there are 4 events less than 2 hours away, filled up with veterans registered for 4 events each, there’s something wrong there. In Northern CA FLL, there are about 250 teams that want to participate each year, and about 12 events with a total of 250 spots. The Affiliate Partners are meticulous about making sure that every team gets a spot within 3 hours drive, and no one gets more than one spot. Perhaps less restrictively, a team attending its 2nd or later event could be “waitlisted” until it is determined that all teams registering for a first event have the opportunity to do so within a reasonable time (say 2 weeks) before an event.
If the World Championship cannot accommodate all advancing teams, I can’t see any way around a hierarchial tree, perhaps with a few extra wild card or lottery spaces added. Blake, what am I missing?
I am happy to trust the powers that be to decide which events would be the “feeders” to the Worlds. “Big” events like Championship of the Americas and Pan Pacific come to mind. Sensible geography (though not necessarily nationality) and numbers of teams could be some of the factors considered in choosing “feeders.”
Now you are starting to hit on the complexities (and problems) of a system that chunks teams up into geographical zones and that limits the numbers of events that “count”.
I personally am disappointed that FIRST doesn’t create more events (that are simpler, less-expensive events); but I think I understand the reasons they choose not to.
I did not mean to imply that a championship would/could be open to any and everyone without restriction, but I did mean to imply that there are ways to select participants without having to send teams through a 2-4 tiered series of winners-take-all-and-advance qualifying rounds.
For qualifying for “championships” through success on the field, you could admit any team that has a Win/Loss/Tie record of better than X after at least N qualifying matches at sanctioned regional tournaments. Perhaps they travel around the globe to get their matches in. Perhaps they drive to a tournament a couple of hours away and host one in their home town. Perhaps they are in a league that has 4 tournaments over 4 months in one spot. Perhaps, if they go to 6 tournaments, you let them chose their records from their best three, or their last three, or three that they choose at the start of the season, or…
Leveling the metaphorical field for wealthy and ordinary teams, without putting on the one-regional-per-year-for-people-who-happen-to-live-within-a-rather-arbitrarily-drawn-region straightjacket that FLL (and some FTC locations) wears can become tough to do; but it shouldn’t be impossible.
I would rather be able to excel locally and go on to a post-season finale in one step. Climbing a ladder of feeders is expensive. For me, lowering barriers to entry includes lowering the financial penalties that come with following up on local success.
Yes, but I would like to see what some of the other teams have to offer. It would be great to able to compete with the 254’s, 1114, 418 (et. al), 721, 44, etc. I have found that the better the competition, the better you can become. Our matches with/against the teams from 148 at the Allen/Lucas tournament were tremendous. Close and hard fought. It made the trip worth while.
I don’t think that I said that you wouldn’t/shouldn’t see them or be able to compete against them in any tournament you both enter. I didn’t intend to suggest restricting where teams can go during the time they are seeking to earn a spot in a higher-level tournament. In fact I railed against it!
I want to see teams that have to stay close to home get just as good of a chance at the higher-level event(s) as the teams that have the $s to on long trips.
I also want to see teams that have to stay close to home get a chance to compete more than once (how about a minimum of 3 times?).
What I did suggest is that having to climb a ladder of regional, state, country, hemisphere, world competitions (or a non-trivial subset of these levels) is a daunting financial challenge. Just taking the one giant step from local (2-3 hour driving distance, no overnight) tournament(s) to wherever a World Championship is held, is a huge expense; especially if you are from half a world away.
I only sketched the bare outline of an alternative to a multi-tiered ladder. The alternative’s features are that long-distance traveling teams and stay-at-home teams can be given roughly equal chances to qualify for the big show; especially if tournaments are kept simple enough to be repeatable, instead of one-shot extravaganzas (maybe a typical tournament location can have one or more bare-bones tournaments and one extravagant end-of-year blow-out tournament?).
As I reread this thread, I’m convinced that people’s view of World’s and the goal of Vex robotics has separated almost completely. As gblake has said:
best teams? Is that what World’s is about now?
I think World’s could be (and is viewed by some to be) an opportunity instead of a competition. I think of it as a chance for people (not just students) to gather together with a common interest, share, learn, and then take back to their communities the knowledge that results from the experience.
To this end, I was thinking of the following:
Part of World’s is finding ways of getting teams to World’s that normally wouldn’t be able to make it. This isn’t unusual in a World event. For example, The World Science Fiction Convention has a number of funds that exist to make sure deserving people get the opportunity to attend the convention.
There is much to be gained by getting as many different communities to Worlds as possible. The more variation in the communities that send representatives, the more the knowledge there can spread back to the communities people came from. The goal should be to get more people to World’s, not finding ways to choose which people get to go.
There is much to be gained by providing avenues for collaboration at Worlds. There is a lot to be gained by making it an event that attracts hobbyists and robotics professionals as well as competing students. Imagine World’s as the kind of event where people from all over the world would also have the opportunity to see a presentation by people like Peter Abrahamson or Eric Drexler. Imagine it as an opportunity to see different principles put into practice to a degree not feasible with the time or resources of a classroom. Imagine it as a place where people who normally never get a chance to see each other in person have opportunities to collaborate together.
If all you’re trying to do is find the best, I think you’re passing up on a lot of opportunity.
Yes, to be able to do this in one aspect of this competition. However, this is the World’s Championships. This should be the celebration of the best teams in the world. These teams receive this honor to attend through all of their accomplishments for that year.
There is also no restrictions as to inviting guest speakers to the local tournaments as well. These presentations can also be web-cast and/or recorded for all to see.
I understand that it is easier to reach the many teams at one central location (the Championships), but there has to be some kind of limitation of the number of teams that can attend. If not, then you could have an un-managable amount of teams for a single event. Even as well organized as IFI did for this year’s event, I would not wish anything bigger for them to control.
BP,
I believe that some of the teams at this year’s (and last year’s) VRC World Championship got their invitations through a lottery system. Does being lucky enough to “win” that lottery, and having enough time and money to attend, elevate a team to being an example of the best of VRC?
Diversity is good. In this thread I suggest that we don’t focus too much on just one aspect of what a World Championship can include, or one function it can perform. Bons made some good points in his post. Thinking of the Championship as a metaphorical “big tent” is probably useful.
You write as though the existence of super-regionals is a forgone conclusion. Rick’s original post asks us to speculate about different ways VRC might become organized. Why settle on one method before discussing several?
Teams that joined VRC this first year were in a rather unique situation, because the program was still small enough to accommodate about 20% of the teams at Worlds. But we should not presume that this will always be so. IFI doesn’t “owe” us advancement to Worlds, and they were very gracious in taking a leap of faith in accommodating the numbers that they did. If the number of teams grows to the point where only, say 2%, can advance to Worlds, then it would make sense to have Super Regionals. If, say 20% of teams can advance to a Super Regional, attending one would become a privilege. I hope that people would view it as such and not see it as a “disappointment.”
Our nearby “neighbor” team attended the Championship of the Americas. Their technical level and time available for practice are similar to ours, although they have better funding. They went to the CoA, met outstanding teams that challenged them, and had an unforgettable experience. We went to Dallas, met outstanding teams that challenged us, and had an unforgettable experience. Whose experience was better? There’s a bit of wistfulness on each side – we got to go to the “big enchilada”; they came home with a trophy. If I had to pick between one or the other, it would be a tough call, and I’d be absolutely content with either. However, there is something to be said for a slightly smaller event, from both the organizers’ and the participants’ point of view.
I suggest that it “would make sense to have Super Regionals” or to use some other method to identify the 2% that would be invited to a next event.
My point is that a Super-Regional should not be thought of as the only way to be selective. There are many other ways to select/invite 200 teams out of a pool of 5000 teams.
Your point about a Super Regional (COA could be called that for North America) being a fine alternative for a team that can’t or doesn’t want to attend a World event is well taken also.
As far as I can remember, there were 3 championships this year. the Pan American Championship, the Championship of Americas, and the World Championships. I do not recall if New Zealand or China had a championship of their own.
If the World Championships are to be the
, then the other tournaments could become super-regionals. The same could be done in other regions of the world.
Absolutely true. In today’s world travel and lodging is not cheap. That’s why a system of super-regionals that are closer to a group of teams based on their location could be a way to go in the future. These winners/top 5-10 teams would advance to the Worlds.
This would limit the number of teams that would go to the World Championships, however, the quality of that event would be incredible ( see the 2009 FRC Michigan Championships).
Asia had one in Singapore before PPC, but it was either canceled or not well-documented, because no media was released on the internet, at least not on the sites I checked.
Also take a look at Einstein finals between Galileo and Curie - 4/6 robots were from Michigan.
