How many TEAMS??????

How many teams from a region make it to world championships?

in my region BC, Canada, only finalists, tournament champs, excellence award winner, and design award winner make it to the world championships. So only 8 teams make it even though there are many teams in my region. Its strange that many of the regions send a lot more teams. Why is that?

In Singapore… mostly only 1 HS will be given a seat for worlds.
The rest will need to go by skills challenge global ranking.

And come to think of it, it doesn’t encourage us to organise events. I mean, countries or regions that only have 1 registered team will gain entry to worlds automatically.
I don’t see the incentive of Organising more events :frowning:

Edit: recf allocates based on growth rate of a region.
But it still doesn’t explain how (for eg.) Cali has more teams from the entire China. I like Cali teams, it does made one wonders if the current system needs some updating.

Cali has too many spots. Singapore doesn’t have enough spots. Obviously Singapore Vex isn’t growing and Cali is, but I think Singapore should get more spots. I especially don’t understand why they would decrease the number of spots Singapore has, especially since they always end up qualifying at least 5 or 6 teams for worlds through skills anyway.

Okay so from a quick skim of the spot allocation from last year.
20 regions have more spots than BC because 20 regions have more teams. The vast majority of regions have a lot less spots than yours.

China had 50
Cali had 43

I didn’t look at the updated numbers just the ones from the qualification criteria document.

If I am not wrong, china 50 was HS and MS combined.
Was Cali a combined figure too?

Edit: based on vexdb data - china had 26 teams in the recent worlds HS, and Cali had 54 teams.

To be fair, most regions have less spots than you guys. Im missouri, only our tournament winners and excellence award go, and due to that, qualifying is much more difficult, even if we do have less teams, because more teams are focusing on the same awards and spots, meaning more teams are good, meaning we also have to win more matches, meaning more things can go wrong.

From southern New England, semi finalists and up, excellence, design, and a few skills spots go. I think it is 17 spots total

This is last year’s qualifying criteria. Read it!

The number of spots per region is based on the number of teams there. If your region has 2% of the registered teams, you get 2% of the Worlds spots.

Thats not true, that may be what vex says, however somone in a thread i can’t be bothered to find did the math, and found its alot easier to get to worlds from california than it is from singapore, and alot of teams compete in singapore, and they only get 1 qaulifying spot, do you really think they only have enough teams for 1 spot?

Would it make sense for qualifying spots to be given based on the number of teams in a region rather than the growth? The US will always grow faster because there’s more advertising targeted to the US, but it’s stupid that Singapore and China get so few spots, and then Cali qualifies over half of the teams at states.

It is based on percentage of teams. They adjust every year off growth because growth affects percentage of teams.

If my memory is correct it’s around 16 teams per worlds spot. Some regions get as high as 20 or as low as 14.

Please bother to find it. :slight_smile:

About 2200 High School teams put up a skills score for Starstruck.

170 High School California teams had a skills score last season. Some teams may have registered and not gotten a skills score. They had 54 high school teams at Worlds 2017.
6 High school teams in Singapore had a skills score last season. Some teams may have registered and not gotten a skills score. They had 6 high school teams at Worlds 2017.

Still feel bad for Singapore??? If you are checking the event and seeing more teams, most Singapore teams are middle school teams.

Some of these may have been top 50, Online challenges, other ways… But for the teams that Singapore has they are very well represented, don’t you think?

You gotta look at the numbers.

The growth or bonus spots is just a way for the RECF to fix the math near the end of the season. Last year’s numbers are a factor, but until the season gets underway they don’t know how each region will compare. They look at the numbers in December and adjust their math. They leave the spots as “extra” because they never want to take spots away from a region. So, they guess a little low in August when the document comes out and then give the extra spots out near the end of the season in December to make them accurate.

California should probably have more regional events based on their number of teams. That way a smaller percentage of the teams at the events would qualify. By the qualifying criteria, only 15 teams can qualify from a tournament. If an event qualifies more, then that event is not configured properly and should not be a Worlds qualifying event. The “extra” spots should go to skills.

The number of spots is based on the number of registered teams, not by the size of the regional tournament.

Let’s say that there are two regions with 100 teams. They are both given 10 Worlds spots.

Region 1 has 20 teams at states. Region 2 has 30 teams at states. Because both regions have the same number of registered teams, so they will both send the same number of teams to Worlds. So region 1 will send half of the teams from states and region two will send a third. It’s the same number based on the number of registered teams. There are no strict guidelines as to how big the regional event should be.

Think the issue is that the allocation of spots is not based on meritocracy, which is what (I believe) many of us feel that it should be.

Yes, you are right - we have more MS than HS. And for that reason, we are only given 1 HS spot via our Nationals (I hope you are not even begrudging me of this one spot).

The rest of the teams gained qualification via the global ranking. The top 50-ranking score, and not that lowered skills score for the individual state.
The rest of the teams basically went for spots that are left open for everybody in the world.

And no - I am not asking for any sympathy, and I am not expecting any as well.
And this is not about Singapore, there are many other issues at large.

We will still need to reconcile these few questions…

  1. Any country that only has one registered team, will gain direct entry to Worlds.
    So what’s the incentive of organising events when the country is only given 1 spot as well?
    And honestly, what’s the point of teams paying for the registration fee when they know that they are either not going or won’t stand a chance in making to worlds?

  2. I still find it hard to believe that Cali has more teams than China.
    Worlds 2017 - China had 26 teams and Cali had 54 teams. Cali has almost twice the number of teams in China?

  3. Sportsmanship Award for Worlds? Does it even sounds right/fair ?
    Yes… I know… Vex is about education and giving exposure to as many kids as possible. But… Sportsmanship?
    If we are talking about education, exposure, inclusiveness, etc, then I think it will make better sense in allocating these spots to some minority groups in other parts of the world.

And no - I am not asking for all these “extra” spots to be given to Singapore. I am just advocating that there is a need to relook into the allocation system and see how we can maximise or make the allocation better.

  1. Worlds 2017 - In the HS, America had 440 teams out of 564 - thats about 78%.
    Is RECF serious about having a world event?
    2016 - 379 out of 490 (77%)
    2015 - 318 out of 437 (73%)
    2014 - 314 out of 421 (75%)
    2013 - 295 out of 415 (71%)

I am not advertising this event… but just using it as an example:

I am not saying that we sure adopt this approach. But just saying that First Global seem more serious about having a world event.

So maybe the underlining question will be - should it be meritocracy, equality or equity?

In Nothing But Net, Arizona had 9 spots (we were told we had 8 from the beginning, then one for “growth”). Then, in Starstruck, we had 8 spots even though we had more teams than the previous year.

Georgia has 20 High School seats including Champions, Finalists, SemiFinalists, Skills, and etc, but in Middle School there are only 3 seats including Tournament Champion Alliance (of 2) and Excellence Award.

Also Georgia originally had 15 spots before the added amount for growth

Unlike previous years, last year’s qualifying criteria document did not have the total number of teams in each region. I repeat my call for RECF to release that important information in this year’s document.

Sure but if your region grew less than the world average. The assumption being the teams per worlds spot went up.

I agree with this. Having more than 70 percent of the teams from the USA makes it more like a US championship. 54 teams are going to worlds from california is unfair for other regions as some teams can qualify for worlds championship with a “Sportsmanship Award”, REALLY!!!

Even many other regions send more than 20 teams to worlds and this makes it very hard for teams from other regions to qualify for world championship even though they maybe deserving of going to worlds. Hundreds of teams try very hard and I believe that awards such as Sportsmanship Award, and a Think Award should not qualify a team to worlds because excellence and design award are there for a reason. Only awards that are given for the performance of a team should qualify a team to worlds. RECF should make it fair for other regions or at least make sure that not all awards that are given qualify a team to world/regional championship.

Edit: excellence award and design award should be the only awards that can qualify a team for worlds as they are regarded as the most important. Please VEX!!!, no Sportsmanship Award should qualify a team to worlds.