Future First Championship News

[Connor Mulkey]

The top-tier teams got to that level because they cared about winning the competition, and they strived to make themselves better in order to achieve that goal. If you look at the top teams in FRC and think, "Man, I want our team to be like that some day," then you better start caring about winning.

That competitive spirit is the single best kickstarter in making your team better, and it's why I believe so strongly in the integrity of this program's competition. The decision to split the championship in two compromises that integrity. It's detrimental to the success of the program, and that's why you've seen this magnitude of backlash here in this thread.

[T^2]

Maybe they got too caught up in the Recognition part of FIRST

Maybe they got too caught up in the "profit" part of "FIRST the non-profit".

[bscharles]

I agree you don't have to win an award or an event, or even get picked for eliminations. But, I think you do have to care about winning and you've got pick up some wins along the way (sometimes those wins are simply "We scored a point!"), which was the original poster's point.

I think we both have similar viewpoints on this. I may have misinterpreted the original poster's statement as winning meaning receiving a trophy or medal.

Teams should have goals that they set and try to achieve each year in order to make them the best they can be, and to do their best at inspiring students. But, I think for the purposes of measuring success, it should be based on their own standards, not the metric of being the best at a competition.


To some of the points about the number of winners vs cheapening the feeling of winning, I think FIRST is trying to figure out the best balance of this. Look at high school sports, how they are separated based on divisions. They choose to separate into divisions based on school size, and have different winners for each division. Even though there are multiple winners for a sport, they all feel the same sense of accomplishment.

[staplemonx]

We mentor to inspire.
We build to learn.
We dedicate hours to achieve.
We play to win.


That last two parts just became a whole bunch goofier.


We dedicate hours to achieve.*
We play to win.*


Why would any sport...and I believe FIRST is a sport, add an * to their winners?

I heartily disagree with change and recommend they look at the commercial successes of other sports, other competitions, other places where people dedicate themselves to achieve greatness and play with all of their soul to to be the best. Because that is where the love, the passion, the emotion, the character and the memories are born. Those are the moments that people strive to achieve and cherish for a lifetime. Those are the accomplishments that make people think they can be better and motivate them to do more.

Please don't add an * to FIRST.

[Sperkowsky]

if they really want to be more accessible they should do an east west format.

So think of it like this.

Have east championships for everything east of the mississippi and west championships for everything west of the mississippi. International teams could choose which one they attend.

Then have the world championships in st.louis with only 1 half of each teams from each divisional.

Its more expensive for the really good teams but they most likely have the funds to do both where as it is much cheaper for the bottom half teams.

[Lil' Lavery]

Not going to sift through 33 pages of responses on this issue, so apologies if this has been brought up before.

Do I agree with this change? No, I don't like it currently. My perception could change, and there have been plenty of other changes FIRST has implemented over the years that were met with varying degrees of negative reactions (alliances, districts, serpentine draft, etc) that are now staples of the FRC experience.

High school sports generally don't have widely recognized national champions. Even NCAA football has had split national champions, and only this year finally implemented a playoff system. While FRC obviously doesn't have the widespread appeal of those sports as cultural institutions at this point, I'm not convinced crowning a singular champion is essential to that. And it's not like the current system even does a particularly great job at having the "best" team win every year. The elite teams are aware of the amount of luck involved in the tournament. Match schedule, division placement, alliance selection, tournament match-ups and a slew of other factors have led to many of the consensus "best" individual teams being eliminated in Championship events over the years. The simple fact that it's an alliance-based tournament adds massive amount of uncertainty to the process of crowning the best teams.

I don't agree with this currently, but I'm not going to line up to throw tomatoes at FIRST just yet.

[1975Flyers]

I wonder if this will be the day that FIRST died? Time will tell.

[Carolyn_Grace]

This whole thread reads like the five stages of grief.

Denial (April Fools!)
Anger (how could they do this to us?!)
Bargaining (Let's make posters and shirts and call HQ!)
Depression (FIRST is going to die)
I'm confident that most people will find Acceptance in the end.

There's also a lot of cognitive dissonance (http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html) happening.

Change is hard. Transitions are difficult. Especially when we aren't part of the decision making process.

[Advice]

Nevermind my post about getting the mentors out of a rut, now how do I keep my students interested? Just yesterday, we met to make our team goals for 2016.

I guess we need to set new goals...

[Qbot2640]

S

A 600 team champs event is great, but I feel it may be too big -- especially when a good portion of the teams going to champs this year "qualified" though the waitlist, instead of through winning (or being a finalist, etc.).

This

In 2012 we got to championship by winning a regional, but so many teams get there by other means that it is easy for a first-time championship team to get overlooked and not taken seriously. I don't want to diminish anyone's experience, but when everybody wins, what is the significance of winning? It's starting to sound like rec league soccer...everyone sign up to bring a snack at one of the events, and when you get to championship...here's your trophy and here's your Capri Sun.

[Boltman]

This

In 2012 we got to championship by winning a regional, but so many teams get there by other means that it is easy for a first-time championship team to get overlooked and not taken seriously. I don't want to diminish anyone's experience, but when everybody wins, what is the significance of winning? It's starting to sound like rec league soccer...everyone sign up to bring a snack at one of the events, and when you get to championship...here's your trophy and here's your Capri Sun.

They won't provide Capri Suns...if they did perhaps it would fly. No its just another $5000 check. Where does that money go?... its ridiculous the costs to attend multiple events especially at future less competitive championships. Ridiculous.

[pagoglia]

I am surprised at how many of the responses are opposed to change. FIRST is an evolving changing beast and there are bound to be changes. Question is was this where change was needed at this time. As a four year lead mentor I can say my team thouroughly enjoyed our Rookie All-Star trip to Championships. We'd love to go again some day but winning there is not as high on our list of things to do as it appears to be with many on this thread. More important is spreading STEM through robotics and having a good time.
A shorter, more relaxed, less competitive version of what exists now might enable some mentors to stay around longer annd some teams to feel more satisfaction. For example; a 'league' where each team can attend if they compete with the robot tbey built as of bag day. No multiple events and therefore no multiple 30 pounds of goodies that permit some to arrive at Championship with a robot that is no longer what came out of the build season. The emphysis is put on getting it right the first time.
The idea being to keep some sanity in the number of months people have to put in. There are a lot of people working as mentors whose involvement grows exponentially with each passing year; turning the mentor positions into what look like full time jobs. This translates into well mentored teams but questionable home life. Money needs to be raised for each added event along with the time commitment. For team members attending multiple events it means more missed school days. I'll stop there but I think that FIRST in general and all teams individually need to question the amount of time and energy they devote to their seasons; attempting to keep some balance of reason so we don't get burnout while trying to effect positive change in our youth.

[Fusion_Clint]

This

In 2012 we got to championship by winning a regional, but so many teams get there by other means that it is easy for a first-time championship team to get overlooked and not taken seriously. I don't want to diminish anyone's experience, but when everybody wins, what is the significance of winning? It's starting to sound like rec league soccer...everyone sign up to bring a snack at one of the events, and when you get to championship...here's your trophy and here's your Capri Sun.

Nailed it! I think they should use either the FTC Super Regional model or the District model.

[Denise Bohnsack]

GROWING PAINS:
FIRST Programs are growing. This is wonderful. There is not a city which can handle the championship as it currently set up. All of us need to understand this. I appreciate the efforts to address the situation.

I believe many worthy teams cannot afford to attend a regional, a super regional, and finally, a championship in FRC, as it is often suggested.

It may be too late, but here are a two possible solutions to consider.

1. Have the FLL and FTC Championships at one location/city and the FRC Championship at another. This would free up space and hotel rooms.

2. Have the FLL and FTC Championships one weekend and the FRC Championship in the days and weekend following in the same city. (All groups will not all be there at once.) Lengthening the event and spreading out the use of hotel rooms and facilities.

These ideas may have already been evaluated, and certainly will have other problems associated with them, but perhaps they are worth giving additional consideration.

Thank you for trying to come up with a solution which benefits all parties and provides more students with FIRST opportunities. It is a difficult task,understandably. I am confident it will all work out eventually. Best wishes to all!!

[jimbo493]

I would just like to point out that I think this is one of the fastest growing CD posts to date, over 500 responses in 10 hours...:eek:

[Kevin Sevcik]

They won't provide Capri Suns...if they did perhaps it would fly. No just another $5000 check. Where does that money go? I'm concerned about all the implications that this is money motivated. Who exactly are you people suggesting is being unfairly enriched by this? Cause it has to be someone.

[Boltman]

I'm concerned about all the implications that this is money motivated. Who exactly are you people suggesting is being unfairly enriched by this? Cause it has to be someone.

Seriously what message does dual championships send? Unless accompanied by a significant entry fee reduction?

Makes no sense to have two locations for < 600 teams or an expansion to 1000 unless entry fee driven.

If it walks like a duck....

[cgmv123]

Makes no sense to have two locations for < 600 teams.

The goal is to have two events of 400 teams each. (Similar sizes to the 2014 Championship)

[magnets]

Wow. This is sad.

How could FIRST not predict the overwhelmingly negative response? If they had sent an email to a few teams with the idea (maybe the hall of fame teams, they're supposed to be in contact with them, right?), they'd be better prepared for the stream of disapproval and complaining.

Why was this done without any sort of public discussion? There were many heated debates on CD and in real life about the merits of district competitions, but the district model was improved as a result. The same could be true for an expanded championship model.

Is the 2015/2016 St. Louis championship format so terrible that they're dropping it before they've even tried it?

[Boltman]

The goal is to have two events of 600 teams each.


How ridiculous is that? Read what you wrote. Other than money grab.

Wasn't too long ago champs was capped at 400.

[MikLast]

if they really want to be more accessible they should do an east west format.

So think of it like this.

Have east championships for everything east of the mississippi and west championships for everything west of the mississippi. International teams could choose which one they attend.

Then have the world championships in st.louis with only 1 half of each teams from each divisional.

Its more expensive for the really good teams but they most likely have the funds to do both where as it is much cheaper for the bottom half teams.

Would this replace DCMPs in any area? i like this idea either way.

[Mr V]

The goal is to have two events of 600 teams each.


What I read was to have two events of the 2014 size or two 400 team events.

[cgmv123]

What I read was to have two events of the 2014 size or two 400 team events.

After I posted it, I went back and read that too. Post edited.

[gblake]

How do you have leadership without winning?Are you serious?

One method is to excel (in any aspect of life) at the cooperative aspect of what Woody likes to call coopertition.

Another thought on the subject would be to point out that in FIRST a team earns the Chairman's Award by exhibiting leadership in many areas, only one of which is doing well enough (not necessarily outstanding; but instead, just well enough) in the coopertition parts of FIRST.

Blake

[Aidan H.]

I think a small point to consider about FTC and FLL is that having them in the same place (or city) helps to "engulf" them in the incredible Champs experience. I would think (my own personal opinion) that FIRST did not like switching to the 600 team model for this year and next year because is forced FTC and FLL to other places, meaning they didn't get the same immersion they used to.
Even though recently there has been few FTC and FLL teams at Champs (compared to FRC), they are still giant programs (though not as big as FRC) that are growing at very fast rates. FIRST really doesn't want (my personal opinion) to forget about them.
CD is almost entirely current FRC participants (some FTC or dual) and it seems most of the opinions about this change reflect an FRC-centric mindset. I would think (my opinion) that FIRST wants FTC and FLL to have more significance at Champs, and 2 Champs probably doesn't mean too much to an FTC or FLL team (but to an FRC team...).

I agree with many that this decision is ripping the "C" out of FRC, demolishing what most of the inspiration for FRC has been built on for the past 25 or so years (pursuit of being the grand winner). It started with a competition, and everyone loves a competition. Add in some robotics, community outreach aspects, and GP awards, and you have inspiration FOR more than just winning, you are inspiring pursuit of science and technology (I would say a much more noble cause than a sport's pursuit of just winning). The problem is that with two Champs, the basic concept of a competition has been eliminated. What are we really playing for?
I have noticed from my time in FIRST that many people are hooked into the competition, because of the nature of it: it's a competition! But then people realize that there is much more: inspiration, mentorship, ect. But after you have found the "more", do you still need the competition? I would say that question is what polarizes the debate.
I would say many people still need the competition; it's what drives them to succeed, keeps you working in the shop, keeps mentors coming back each day. You realize there is more to it, and FIRST has done a great job making sure everyone realizes those aspects, but at the end of the day, this is the FIRST Robotics Competition, and that's what many people love about it.

Sidenote: Sorry, I was thinking about the FTC/FLL aspect, and wanted to add that point in, and then meandered into adding my $0.02.

[Kevin Sevcik]

This

In 2012 we got to championship by winning a regional, but so many teams get there by other means that it is easy for a first-time championship team to get overlooked and not taken seriously. I don't want to diminish anyone's experience, but when everybody wins, what is the significance of winning? It's starting to sound like rec league soccer...everyone sign up to bring a snack at one of the events, and when you get to championship...here's your trophy and here's your Capri Sun.I'm also concerned by this attitude. Champs as the ultimate robot competition is depressing to me since to achieve this you need to:

Eliminate waitlists, and probably wildcards. They didn't win in so they shouldn't be there.
Eliminate advancing 2nd and 3rd picks. They're usually just along for the ride on the winning alliance.
Eliminate advancing chairman's, HoF, and EI robots. Their robot didn't get them there, so that would water down the competition.
Eliminate advancing RAS. Best rookie is still a rookie.
Eliminate advancing original and sustaining teams. Just cause you used to be good...
I mean, if we're serious about crowning the one true champion and all that.

[Boltman]

I'm also concerned by this attitude. Champs as the ultimate robot competition is depressing to me since to achieve this you need to:

Eliminate waitlists, and probably wildcards. They didn't win in so they shouldn't be there.
Eliminate advancing 2nd and 3rd picks. They're usually just along for the ride on the winning alliance.
Eliminate advancing chairman's, HoF, and EI robots. Their robot didn't get them there, so that would water down the competition.
Eliminate advancing RAS. Best rookie is still a rookie.
Eliminate advancing original and sustaining teams. Just cause you used to be good...
I mean, if we're serious about crowning the one true champion and all that.

Do all that (in allowing those entries) and keep it in one city. It works. Two cities does not work... always a step-child competition. Is the world clamoring for 800 in champs?

[Kevin Sevcik]

Seriously what message does dual championships send? Unless accompanied by a significant entry fee reduction?

Makes no sense to have two locations for < 600 teams or an expansion to 1000 unless entry fee driven.

If it walks like a duck....Right. So who are we proposing is inflating their salary and pocketing all that extra money? Unless you think they're funneling the extra money into FTC, FLL, etc. In which case why the outage?

[cgmv123]

Unless you think they're funneling the extra money into FTC, FLL, etc.

FLL and FTC subsidize FRC (and will for the foreseeable future). FIRST's financials tell us that much.

[JaneYoung]

I've always thought of the Championship Event as a Championship event. It is possible to have 2 Championsip events - or more. Much of the chatter in this thread makes me think the mindset is that of a National event that wants to have the Worlds title. The bigger picture is of a much broader and wider scope; an inclusive one. Imagine a Championship Event in Israel, Great Britain, China, Mexico, Brazil... Imagine the Awards given to prestigious members and teams of the FIRST communities in these countries and others. Imagine these members and teams in 2020, 2025, 2030... Not in 2015 where we bicker about the locations of 2 host cities in the USA only.

Much of the basis of the HoF teams has been a foundation of growing FIRST and STEM initiatives in our communities, creating a far-reaching impact. This has happened and will continue to happen. To put blinders on and deny growth and a legitimate need for change that reflects this very real growth and interest, is nothing less than hypocritical.

Since when has FIRST ever accepted/maintained the status quo? Since when have teams, mentors, and our FIRST community leadership chosen to maintain the status quo? This is just the beginning, I think. And it is exciting.

Jane

[Kevin Sevcik]

My wife's suggestion for solving the problem of only ever seeing teams from your region at Champs is to let teams willing to travel sign up for a lotto to swap slots with a team at the other Champs. So you'd have a 50/50 chance at seeing a new set of teams that year. HQ probably wouldn't let teams just pick which Champs because of capacity and the risk of everyone picking Houston to make it the Premier event, but this would still allow for some inter regional mixing.

[the programmer]

I haven't read all 500 posts so I apologize if some of my ideas have already been said but to me, FIRST has a few options:

First, they could stick exactly to their current plan. To me, this is the worst option as now you'll only interact with half the teams in the world and instead of qualifying for a true championship, you basically qualify for a bigger regional.

The second option is to have the two championships but for them to culminate in a small event where one CCA winner is announced and one championship alliance is announced. This model would be scalable and the culminating event would be very spectator friendly, especially coupled with FTC and FLL. This still has the issue of region locking teams.

A third option would be for the first "CMP" to be similar to the NIT and the second to be like the NCAA tournament. This let's teams interact with other teams from all over the world but the NIT style event may not be the most inspiring.

A fourth option would be to have teams pick their CMP or have it randomly selected, this could culminate in a final event like in the second option.

I'm sure there are many other options but considering FIRST seems to be locked into these venues, these seem like the best options.

[Heretic121]

After reading about 10 pages I stopped.

I agree with a lot of Veterans who spoke in those first 10 pages and hope FIRST listens to those who have been around for 10+ years and have been the real backbone of this organization (ex. mentors, volunteers).

I'm going to give FIRST a pass with the hopes of a real explaination of what the reasons for this and not going the way of the Super Regional like planed when districts were announced, as well as a financial reason outside of "this is going to save teams money" shenanigans.

[Iaquinto.Joe]

FRC in Michigan is going to be so cool! :D :D :ahh:

[asid61]

I dislike the idea as it lowers the number of awesome robots I can see at champs. I want a good look at 148 and 1114 while I'm there this year, and other bots in other years.
More district championships, followed by one big champs event would be my choice. To allow more teams to come, we could try moving it around the world, at least when more countries become involved.

[itsjustjon]

I'm also concerned by this attitude. Champs as the ultimate robot competition is depressing to me since to achieve this you need to:

Eliminate waitlists, and probably wildcards. They didn't win in so they shouldn't be there.
Eliminate advancing 2nd and 3rd picks. They're usually just along for the ride on the winning alliance.
Eliminate advancing chairman's, HoF, and EI robots. Their robot didn't get them there, so that would water down the competition.
Eliminate advancing RAS. Best rookie is still a rookie.
Eliminate advancing original and sustaining teams. Just cause you used to be good...
I mean, if we're serious about crowning the one true champion and all that.

Eliminating all of those teams that got to Worlds by means of awards and such is shunning a lot of teams that do not necessarily deserve to be shut out of the experience. Doing so wouldn't fix much and your solution is way far right on the spectrum while having two Champs is on the far left. It definitely doesn't have to be all or nothing.

[Squillo]

I think most of the kids (probably all of them) on our "middle-of-the-road" team would be just as happy, excited and inspired to go to a "half-worlds" championship, get to play with and be inspired by half of the best teams in the world, as to go to a true "World Championship." I can see both sides of that part of the argument. If this new arrangement actually accomplished that for a majority of teams, it might have SOME merit. Though a "super-regional" on the west coast would do just as well in that regard.

It's just a shame that their attempt to "lower travel costs" does absolutely nothing for the teams on the whole west side of the mainland US, not to mention Hawaii, Mexico, Australia, China, Japan, and the other teams we play with over here. Nor for teams in Europe/Israel/etc.

When I started reading the post, I thought - "Wow! Geographical split! They're finally going to have a championship event on the west coast! (Because west coast/east coast, or something similar - Detroit/Las Vegas, maybe? - was so obvious...) But then I read on.... You can't tell me that they couldn't find any city in the whole west side of the continent that could host this event???

This makes things easier for the MI/Toronto/NE/MAR teams only, as far as I can tell. Someone should figure out exactly what percentage of all the teams are benefited in any way by this, and ARE they the teams that really NEED that help the most? Does this actually benefit teams that are NOT currently attending champs BECAUSE of the travel cost? I'd like to see some data on that. Where are the teams who qualify for champs but can't go because of cost - are they in Michigan or NY? Or in Washington State, China, and Israel? Or in Florida? Just curious. I know if we'd qualified any year between 2011 and this year, inclusive, we would most likely not have been able to go, due to cost.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

While my initial reaction was very similar to many of those expressed earlier in this thread, I think there's something that we're missing, and that we need to reserve judgement until we find out what it is. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but Dave Lavery's post has made me believe that we're not seeing the entire picture, and that the final result will be better.

The sky, contrary to popular belief, is not falling.

[madhav]

I'd like to see some data on that.


This might help. Posted wayyy back.

For the sake of informing the discussion, the circles on this map represent a 750 mile radius drawn from each of the three cities. It's pretty clear that these areas encompass a majority of current FRC teams.

I chose 750 miles because that's the furthest I've ever driven without wanting to die. It's about a 12 hour drive.

http://imgur.com/6MoevnA

[jman4747]

This is not that bad. I don't think north or south will be "easy" to win due to not playing "half" the world. Districts would feel a bit better but we realy don't loose anything when you think about it. It's ambiguously unsettling because it's new and I like the alternative more. And yea it's more of a bummer when your shop is 5min from the former worlds location and the south championship is now 10hrs away. Thats all there is to it.

If you quit because of this you missed the point and maybe you shouldn't have joined up in the first place? Sponsors and aren't pulling out. Apparently FIRSTs sponsors are very on board or they couldn't afford two championships! Mentors share knowledge and show kids what engineering is realy like. If you are a mentor would you realy abandon your current and future students because you can't be the undisputed champ?

Why we are here now and why you shouldn't quit after 2016 is the same reason you do FRC and not just VRC/FTC in spite of the cost. The big robots are still realy cool and the amout of technical knowlage that can be attained is unrivaled for a high school program. Couple that with more sportsmanship and as much teamwork as any other sport and you have the best thing I've ever seen. Watchability is a fuction of team performance and that will go up naturally as more teams spring up and the field gets denser in the north and south.

I'd rather see districts but whatever. Now put it back in Atlanta!:p

[Fielding S.]

So FIRST's mission is to inspire as many young people to pursue STEM-related activities and careers as possible, right?

According to Dan Bossi in his announcement video, FIRST is different from other sports in that FIRST is more a celebration of every team's achievements and efforts. I remember somebody posting (I'm not going to even attempt to find the post) that because of more winners being crowned, CMP is becoming more like a science fair and less like a, well, competition/championship.

To me, this sounds like FIRST is trying to make FRC less of an actual sport. FIRST's desire to inspire as many people as possible is very understandable, but they're going about this the absolute wrong way.

It doesn't take a genius to know that major sporting events are much more popular than science fairs and conventions. How many kids dream of becoming a professional athlete someday? In contrast, how many kids dream of becoming a scientist that wins best-in-show someday?

In order to accomplish FIRST's main goal, robotics programs must become more like sports. Sports are universally popular, inspiring, and captivating. Yes, this means having one all-encompassing championship event and giving the title of "World Champion" to the best in the world. Why is this contrary to the mission of FIRST? It seems to have worked out for many sports programs.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

This is not that bad. I don't think north or south will be "easy" to win due to not playing "half" the world. Districts would feel a bit better but we realy don't loose anything when you think about it. It's ambiguously unsettling because it's new and I like the alternative more. And yea it's more of a bummer when your shop is 5min from the former worlds location and the south championship is now 10hrs away. Thats all there is to it.

If you quit because of this you missed the point and maybe you shouldn't have joined up in the first place? Sponsors and aren't pulling out. Apparently FIRSTs sponsors are very on board or they couldn't afford two championships! Mentors share knowledge and show kids what engineering is realy like. If you are a mentor would you realy abandon your current and future students because you can't be the undisputed champ?

Why we are here now and why you shouldn't quit after 2016 is the same reason you do FRC and not just VRC/FTC in spite of the cost. The big robots are still realy cool and the amout of technical knowlage that can be attained is unrivaled for a high school program. Couple that with more sportsmanship and as much teamwork as any other sport and you have the best thing I've ever seen. Watchability is a fuction of team performance and that will go up naturally as more teams spring up and the field gets denser in the north and south.

I'd rather see districts but whatever. Now put it back in Atlanta!:p

When most people say they are quitting, I don't think they mean quitting their robotics teams. I think they mean that they won't compete with their teams in FIRST anymore and instead compete in another competition such as VRC. There isn't anything wrong with that either. No one is obligated to stick to FIRST since it's not the only competition around that promotes STEM and they shouldn't be scrutinized just because they do switch. I'm pretty sure these mentors do get FIRST and if they believe competing in FIRST is no longer in their team's best interest, then there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, if a competition could end up discouraging teams so much that they end up leaving FIRST, perhaps there is something wrong with the decisions being made or that have already been made. I'm all for expansion but maybe the focus should be on districts and super regional instead of dividing championships.

[Link07]

I don't know about you guys, but I don't really like this idea that much.

[stephencornwell]

First they create a game that completely eliminates all defense and direct competition among teams, lacking even winners and losers outside of the finals. Then they create a second world championship eliminating the prestige of winning worlds because only half of the best teams were there. First is quickly eliminating all the competitive elements from the competition that have driven teams to work so hard and fostered such a communal spirit of competitiveness

[jman4747]

So FIRST's mission is to inspire as many young people to pursue STEM-related activities and careers as possible, right?

According to Dan Bossi in his announcement video, FIRST is different from other sports in that FIRST is more a celebration of every team's achievements and efforts. I remember somebody posting (I'm not going to even attempt to find the post) that because of more winners being crowned, CMP is becoming more like a science fair and less like a, well, competition/championship.

To me, this sounds like FIRST is trying to make FRC less of an actual sport. FIRST's desire to inspire as many people as possible is very understandable, but they're going about this the absolute wrong way.

It doesn't take a genius to know that major sporting events are much more popular than science fairs and conventions. How many kids dream of becoming a professional athlete someday? In contrast, how many kids dream of becoming a scientist that wins best-in-show someday?

In order to accomplish FIRST's main goal, robotics programs must become more like sports. Sports are universally popular, inspiring, and captivating. Yes, this means having one all-encompassing championship event and giving the title of "World Champion" to the best in the world. Why is this contrary to the mission of FIRST? It seems to have worked out for many sports programs.

Okay fine but crowning 6 champions out if 3,000 is NOT like giving everyone a trophy. I for one would be quite fine telling sponsors we did the best out of 2,994 other teams or 1,497 if you think of it as the half. We don't need to be a sport we need to show people how fun what we do is regardless format. There is so much more.

[Lil' Lavery]

For the sake of informing the discussion, the circles on this map represent a 750 mile radius drawn from each of the three cities. It's pretty clear that these areas encompass a majority of current FRC teams.

I chose 750 miles because that's the furthest I've ever driven without wanting to die. It's about a 12 hour drive.

http://imgur.com/6MoevnA

It took me longer than it should have to figure out that the (Mercator?) projection is the reason the radius around Detroit appeared larger than the two others.

[jman4747]

When most people say they are quitting, I don't think they mean quitting their robotics teams. I think they mean that they won't compete with their teams in FIRST anymore and instead compete in another competition such as VRC. There isn't anything wrong with that either. No one is obligated to stick to FIRST since it's not the only competition around that promotes STEM and they shouldn't be scrutinized just because they do switch. I'm pretty sure these mentors do get FIRST and if they believe competing in FIRST is no longer in their team's best interest, then there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, if a competition could end up discouraging teams so much that they end up leaving FIRST, perhaps there is something wrong with the decisions being made or that have already been made. I'm all for expansion but maybe the focus should be on districts and super regional instead of dividing championships.

What they are saying is they favor winning over the technical chalenge in FRC. Good riddance. I'll stick with the big robots.

[nerdrock101]

While my initial reaction was very similar to many of those expressed earlier in this thread, I think there's something that we're missing, and that we need to reserve judgement until we find out what it is. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but Dave Lavery's post has made me believe that we're not seeing the entire picture, and that the final result will be better.

The sky, contrary to popular belief, is not falling.

This is my thought too. I'm taking a Hanlon's Razor approach to it: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". Though, in this case I might change that last word to ignorance. Reader's choice.

I volunteered for a regional last weekend and it completely changed my perspective. There were many teams that were just happy that they finally got the stack of three they designed their robot for, or got a buzzer beater tote onto the scoring platform. It's about what the students can do, not about who else they can beat. If we're proud of them for winning, it's little different from a traditional sport. I'm proud of the robot that comes out at the end and all the work they put into learning how to make it.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

What they are saying is they favor winning over the technical chalenge in FRC. Good riddance. I'll stick with the big robots.

Who is saying VRC isn't a great technical challenge? Heck even on 842 we considered at one point to stop doing FRC and focus on AUVSI's Robosub competition because we thought it was a greater technical challenge and more affordable but ultimately decided on doing both. Would we have been scrutinized for that? And I don't say good riddance. I'd be sad to see so many teams leave.

[jman4747]

Who is saying VRC isn't a great technical challenge? Heck even on 842 we considered at one point to stop doing FRC and focus on AUVSI's Robosub competition because we thought it was a greater technical challenge and more affordable but ultimately decided on doing both. Would we have been scrutinized for that? And I don't say good riddance. I'd be sad to see so many teams leave.

Well it sure sounds like it. And to be clear I still prefer the expanded district system. This is nothing to quit over however and I think FRC is a bigger technical challenge. Again why haven't you done VRC/FTC exclusively prior to this? The reasons for choosing FRC are not lost in this development.

[evanperryg]

Repeating a lot of what has already been said, but:
-This degrades the significance of winning the championship. Why let the best alliance win when you can let everyone win, right? Wrong. The intensity, the inspiration of FIRST comes, in part, from winning. The feeling of victory in a challenging competition is something irreplaceable and by doubling the winners, that feeling will be diminished.
-This makes IRI a very, very important event. Only at IRI will the best robots in the world be able to compete together. If I were on the IRI planning committee, I'd be looking into larger/better suited venues, cause if this goes the way I think it'll go, IRI is going to become the new champs, at least for robot performance.
-This really doesn't help many teams. The large concentration of teams in Michigan will benefit once it's in Detroit, but, then again, it's not helping anyone else. It's going to be very amusing to watch all those trailers navigate Detroit's strange U-turn based infrastructure. (Clarification: detroit has right turns like normal, but instead of left turns, they have u-turn lights, where you turn around then make a right to your destination) It disregards the large concentrations of teams on the entire east coast, too.

[Anupam Goli]

What they are saying is they favor winning over the technical chalenge in FRC. Good riddance. I'll stick with the big robots.

Doing what it takes to win is the technical challenge for many of us. The bar is raised every year thanks to these teams. I'll stick to the competition where they go, because in the process of trying to win, we'll be in a "technical challenge" of our own and we'll end up learning a lot on the way.

[Monochron]

Rampant speculation time! I'm going to go out on a limb and say the "compromise" (if FIRST calls it that) will be to convert these two Championships into the long awaited Super Regionals after the first couple years. It's just crazy thinking, but it would fit much better with what we have been expecting and, I think, be a much better solution that wouldn't require such a huge financial commitment up front.

The timeline is hard to reconcile with this idea though. The fact that this is still so many years away certainly isn't what I expected.

[PayneTrain]

555 posts and we could have done more! Let's see if we get some official dialogue tomorrow.

[BJT]

By 2017 there could be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3600 teams. So each championship event will draw from a pool of about 1800 teams to award chairmans, EI, WFA, etc. Most people here seem to view this as a disaster, Id call it 2010. I was at worlds in 2010 and I don't think it was that bad. The sky wasn't falling from any part of the arena.
As far as awards go, The way I see it this affects 6 teams per year. There will be 2 winning alliances, but thats still a huge accomplishment. All the other awards will have the same value and importance as past years.
What did everyone expect, seriously, FIRST is getting bigger.

My 2 cents:)

[Akash Rastogi]

555 posts and we could have done more! Let's see if we get some official dialogue tomorrow.

What's crazy to me is that, for once, the majority of people posting here actually seem to agree with each other.

[PayneTrain]

What's crazy to me is that, for once, the majority of people posting here actually seem to agree with each other.

I haven't been around the block that long but the community has never gone full throttle like this. Also reps from three of the biggest and oldest and HoF/F&S team centers in FIRST have been at competition. I can only imagine what is going through the heads of those in the Mid Atlantic, Michigan, and New England brain trusts.

[Abhishek R]

I haven't been around the block that long but the community has never gone full throttle like this. Also reps from three of the biggest and oldest and HoF/F&S team centers in FIRST have been at competition. I can only imagine what is going through the heads of those in the Mid Atlantic, Michigan, and New England brain trusts.

Which championship will you be slicing oranges at?

[Kevin Kolodziej]

If the games continue to be like Recycle Rush, two Championships makes total sense - each Championship only needs half of each playing field! Houston can be Red, and Detroit can be Blue, and the screens can show the feed from the other event!

I do not like this.

But if we're looking for constructive suggestions, maybe FIRST can at least find ways to send the proper amount of teams from each event to these events. DCMPs send a % of teams equal to the % in the district - regional events should do the same. A 60 team event should be sending more than a 30 team event. Why not use the same district point structure to determine who the top % of teams are at a given event? Use the smallest event as your standard (if a 30 team event still sends 3 winners, EI, CA, and RAS, that's 20%..by comparison a 60 team event would then send those 6 that earn it plus another 6 that qualify based on points).

Here's something that really bothers me about these plans though:
For the Houston Championship, Opening Ceremonies will be held in the Toyota Center, home of the Houston Rockets. Competition matches for all programs will be held in the George R. Brown Convention Center, followed by Closing Ceremonies in Minute Maid Park, home of the Houston Astros, which has a retractable roof.
For the Detroit Championship, Opening and Closing Ceremonies will be held in Ford Field, an enclosed domed stadium, which is home to the Detroit Lions. Competition matches for all programs will be held in Cobo Center.

The competition isn't even in the stadiums! The most impressive part of the Championship in its current form is getting to play in a huge stadium! Anyone who played on the pit fields in 2011 knows how much it sucked - now everyone gets that wonderfully uninspiring experience.

My last rant for the evening: If the purpose of two events is to allow more teams to get the championship experience, are both events going to have the same speakers, same ceremonies, same special guests, same entertainment?

[jman4747]

Doing what it takes to win is the technical challenge for many of us. The bar is raised every year thanks to these teams. I'll stick to the competition where they go, because in the process of trying to win, we'll be in a "technical challenge" of our own and we'll end up learning a lot on the way.

This seems to suggest that half of the world is not very competative. It also assumes no one will rise to the challenge presented by who is at the top of the region and that no new powerhouses will ever spring up. And when I say technical I mean the engineering of the robot. Winning is a function of that, driver training, scouting, strategy, co-op, luck, etc. I'm not following someone because they can't have their undisputed winner belt.

[RonAyyyyyyyy]

just curious, what is a "flex event" as stated on the "First's Vision" link?

Also, I am not a fan of this change at all either. I like the super regional idea a lot more.

[tStano]

I'm proud of myself for reading the whole thread before posting. I'm not sure how much of the thread I actually internalized, but seeing as its growing at levels almost exceeding that of game hint threads, at least I made it through. Those on CD sure do hold their opinions very close.

I am a senior on my team, and have been a member since 2012. My team made it to championships in 2013 on chairmans, and that experience was very transformational for me. It created that thirst to be the best, to put in countless extra hours, especially this year, when I wanted to return. My team didn't make it back, but thats beside the point. I can't pinpoint exactly what about world championships was so inspiring to me, the sea of hormones at roboprom, the intense competition, the people like me, the antics at the hotel. There are things in a championship event that are beyond the competition that probably still would have inspired me, but thats not really my problem with this decision.

What bothers me most about it is that they didn't talk to teams about it beforehand, y'know, before contracts were signed, especially such long contracts. I could see trying it out for a year and seeing if it works out. I understand details still need to be worked out, but huge decisions have been made without any community involvement. Frank has been doing such a great job being transparent with much of FIRST's inner workings, but this seems to have been a major slipup. Its placement right before current champs and during many DCMPs seems an attempt to slip it under the radar. I don't understand FIRST finances, and I understand I can look them up, but whenever I think about it, I can never figure out where the money goes.

There was community support behind the super-regional model posted here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=18804 and I don't understand why this wasn't at least closer to the truth.

The cities chosen also don't make much sense to me. There was a map posted earlier with 750 mile circles drawn on it, and it looks to be horribly inconvenient for PNW and California, generally much of the west, as well as much of the far east, which is where I thought a majority of the teams were. Neither of these cities is super cheap to fly into, Houston ain't the worst, but detroit is pretty pricey, and only getting worse. Flying is what it appears most east and west coast teams will need to do.

There was an earlier suggestion about a small basketball arena for the true championship, to crown a real winner and a tongue in cheek suggestion about not invitiing chairmans, ei, HoF 2nd, 3rd picks. I think these ideas honestly work well together. Have your big flashy championship events, inspire the kids, and invite the best robots to a one weekend day, true championship. I don't have a good metric for picking "The best robots", but I would hope FIRST could scramble together the money to pay for those best robots(and a skeleton team) to get to ultrachamps. In a perfect world, these super exciting matches would be televised(at least web broadcast with enough bandwidth for everyone who wants to to watch), which would inspire the public, and keep FRC a sport.

On a different note, I can't speak for them, and they're certainly way too busy about now, but I'm really glad I'm not a Michigan volunteer once Detroit hosts a championship.

[mrnoble]

This is quite literally how the Europa League works in European soccer. Finish in one of the top 4 spots in your division? You go to the Champions League (top level cup competition). The next two spots? Europa League. Both competitions are taken fairly seriously, and at the end there is a match between the champions of the two (The European Super Cup).

Not saying that it is necessarily the right thing to do for FRC, but there is precedent.

European football teams are generally thrilled to keep playing, since the clubs make more money off of branded merchandise and ticket sales, and the players can increase their salaries and their open market value. High school students and volunteers might not do so well adding another week of time out of state and away from school.

[AndrewPospeshil]

Whew, so I just read through 38 pages of angry FIRSTers. Something I would never agree to before today. I'll keep my input regarding the implications of this decision to myself seeing as I've hardly known the news for 12 hours now. I ask only a few questions (I apologize in advance for the length of this rambling post - it's 12:30 am and I'm avoiding much needed sleep rn :D):

Why would FIRST announce this plan at this time? The morning of the first day of 3 DCMPs? It seems like possibly the worst time to do so. 2015 CMP is looming on the horizon - FIRST is probably busy organizing that, working out issues with teams who need help, etc. It seems like the logical time would either be a) at CMP 2015, where all the organizing and planning has been done, and the season is just days from ending or b) in the offseason, when FIRST is relatively dormant and can handle such a large community reaction (which I'm sure they saw coming with such a relatively vague announcement)
Speaking of vagueness, why would FIRST announce this plan with a seemingly small amount of information fleshed out? They've determined the broad scope of the event, but a lot of the finer details haven't been revealed/worked out. Now granted they might be looking for some community input before determining things like 2 Champion alliances, 2 WCAs, etc, but I feel like FIRST is pretty good at gauging what's good for the community without it's input (Aerial Assist, district model). I feel like they've revealed only the least appealing information - although that may be intentional, ripping off the metaphorical bandaid)
I only suggest CD members (and people not associated with the decision making process in general) to consider what you post in this thread - As a student it is by no means my job, duty, or responsibility to police what others say and post, but it appears some people are allowing their emotions to get ahead of themselves. We've known about this news for less time than some of us will spend building during one day of build season; let's cool it a little. I've seen posts in this thread talking about leaving FIRST altogether, starting revolts or petitions, etc. While I don't necessarily think those ideas are super far-fetched and out of the question (okay, maybe a little :p), I think we should wait until the changes are a) in the much nearer future and b) described in much more detail before jumping ship. FIRST has existed successfully for close to 30 years now - I hardly think they would make a decision so horrible that they start to lose all their members!


TL;DR: chill yo

(standard disclaimer about how this post expresses my personal views and my views only, not those of my team, school, city, etc etc)

[runneals]

I'm confused why they aren't implementing super regional events like FTC does. 2 WC events is going to be harmful to the overall quality of this program.

EXACTLY my thinking John! The FTC North SR was super amazing and fun. Why don't they have 4 "Super-Regional Events" (north, south, east, west) that incorporate all the programs (like champs does) to replace champs? This would make the most sense, as it would bring in teams that are more local to the area and reduce travel significantly (I think almost all of our teams drove to the North SR). I could see something really cool like this happening (allowing for quite a few more of the top-notch teams from each state/regional to advance further, and then invite like the winner/finalist to Manchester (or around there) for a "World Championship" type event. I think this would be quite a bit more intimate for the teams advancing to Worlds, but I think it would be cool to get FIRST back to it's roots.

EDIT: Also worth noting that the FTC Super Regionals most likely won't move, as they have secured sponsors who would probably prefer them to not move. Plus gracious sponsors like Rockwell Collins/John Deere/etc brings a lot of people to help out at events.

Also, for those who were complaining about cost... FTC SR only costs $500/team. Is there a reason why we can't get pricing down to this for teams? Maybe find more event sponsors who will underwrite/sponsor the venue?

[Kevin Pardus]

Over the past several hours, with numerous breaks, I have read over at last count 566 posts on 38 pages. So this post most likely will be covered over quickly as more folks continue to respond to this thread.
Missing from those pervious posts are any comments reference what the future impact might be on the current FRC timeline of a Kickoff in early Jan with a 6-1/2 week Build Season followed by a 7 week Regional-District Competition Season. In 2017, using the current FRC timeline, it seems that teams participating in any Week 7 events will only have a few days between the end of those events and the start of the ‘Houston’ FIRST Championship. I am waiting for the other shoe to drop reference the following issues:
1) What will be the effects of the scheduled/contracted 2017-20 FIRST Championship dates on future Kickoff dates and associated Build & Competition Seasons?
2a) Which District Championships & Regional events will feed into which FIRST Championship?
2b) Will those competition events and FIRST Championship alignments change every year or be some what consistent?

[James1902]

500+ passionate posts from a group of usually very busy people on the subject of what is, to the outside world, a high school extracurricular activity...if we're not an amazing fandom I really don't know what is.

As someone who has worked to present FIRST as a form of entertainment for people inside and outside the program (which I think is consistent with the goals of FIRST) I have an issue with a narrative that lacks a satisfying conclusion. "One Championship event, bringing together competitors from around the world to have one shot at un-paralleled glory and prestige" is just a more compelling story than "two "Championship" events that bring most of the competitors from a certain area of the world to have a shot at equal prestige as that other competition". This just makes it more difficult to tell the story of the FIRST season, and that's already pretty difficult as it is.

Change is a fact of life. We grow, evolve, regenerate, and usually we move on, better than we were before. With the way FIRST is growing some sort of adjustment must be made, I think a majority of us agree with this sentiment.

Does this mean I like the changes they've made? No.

Is it driving me to quit the program? Probably not.

Have I become that annoying mentor who asks rhetorical questions to make a convoluted point? ...

I'm hoping that FIRST has a longer term plan for this system that addresses my concerns, but if they do I wish they would have made that clear when they made this announcement.

[runneals]

But why have worlds that big? Why not just start the super regional system small with ~200 teams per super regional, and then have like 30 per super regional make worlds. Money is already an issue, no need to make the worlds large just to be large.

I think getting FIRST back to it's roots in/around Manchester would be pretty cool and have FIRST HQ open to tours/etc (I don't know if you could do that with like 120 FRC teams ...)

[Kevin Ray]

I'm also concerned by this attitude. Champs as the ultimate robot competition is depressing to me since to achieve this you need to:

Eliminate waitlists, and probably wildcards. They didn't win in so they shouldn't be there.
Eliminate advancing 2nd and 3rd picks. They're usually just along for the ride on the winning alliance.
Eliminate advancing chairman's, HoF, and EI robots. Their robot didn't get them there, so that would water down the competition.
Eliminate advancing RAS. Best rookie is still a rookie.
Eliminate advancing original and sustaining teams. Just cause you used to be good...
I mean, if we're serious about crowning the one true champion and all that.
This has been my sentiment for a long time. I was just too chicken to say it. And this is from a team who has been to the CMP 9 consecutive years (counting this year) and all but two of them are for the reasons listed above so I think we know what it's like to get there by all means.

[ratdude747]

9LONG post ahead, but I have something to say)

My personal opinion, based on current information: (sarcasm in italics)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1f/YOU%27RE_WINNER_trophy.jpg

Yup. That's what came to mind, for those who won. Yeah, you won. Won what? Doesn't matter, you won. Good Job This trophy feels cheap and looks familiar (sees a bunch of other teams with similar trophies)... Doesn't matter, you won

The way I see it is that FIRST seems to be looking to lower the bar rather than raise the floor. Champs is a big fun party... but it's champs. Where the best of the best are recolonized and more importantly, the model teams for others to emulate, follow, and gain inspiration from.

Sure, good teams will still be good teams either way, but awards are about giving credit where credit is due. It's the reason why when one wins, they are the ones that get the winner's trophy. This is why I think splitting champs w/o some sort of a true final is a HUGE mistake. Sure, there will always be IRI, but IRI isn't meant to be such and making it such (even defacto) would make it something other than IRI.

Some other issues I see (which have been mentioned before):

-southeastern teams and the west coast get the wrong end of the stick, travel is a lose-lose for them. No improvement, but given the relative size of such, one can't claim "improved travel" and still have a straight face without an asterisk.

-Due to a potential competitive level difference between locked regions, one would in time become a step-sibling to the other. This would be bad news for a lot of teams, as it would turn into what NASCAR has with the sprint cup (the elites, mostly) and the Xfinity series (less than elites with a bunch of elites who "steal" wins half the time). While this comparisons seems a bit odd, hear me out; The drivers who "steal" the Xfinity wins would be the elite teams forced into the lesser championship, where they would presumably win a disproportionate amount of the time, leading to such sentiment. The difference being that NASCAR knows well that one is the elite league and one is the lackey league, and that said drivers actively choose to race in the lower league (in addition to Sprint).

---------

Since I want this post to be ultimately constructive, Here's my personal advice for what to do (idealy in some ways):

-Recognize that in order to be a sport in the sense that other HS sports are seen and understood, there has to be a true championship attitude at all events (in that there will be true winners), and structure events to reflect that. Even if there is NO world championship (highest level is region), at least recognize those who excel (and not just say "you'all win, come back next time")

-Move as many areas as possible to districts, with district championships

-(sorta unrelated) make invitation to championship merit based, not quota or waitlist based. Even the current notion of "you have 1/60 of all teams so you shall send 10 teams out of 600 attending" feels and from what I've personally seen in IN, is another place where the flawed logic of "everybody wins" in that invitation to championship is treated as given not earned. (I still think wild cards, HOF, past champions and legacies should get in, they did earn it as none are cakewalks to perform).

-If championship needs to be capped at 400 or 600, so be it. Make the lower events (DSC's) better and greater in quantity, and make championship something that is worth working for and earning.

Finally, I'll give an example that could have merit to follow: Toastmasters International (My dad is very involved with them). They have a large number of clubs (analogous to teams in FRC), and use a tiered system in the following taxonomy (used for the international speech contest each year) : area, division, district, region (former, retired), and world conference. Present FRC districts are about the size (kinda smaller actually) of districts in TI... they used to have a region level that would say be 1/2 or 1/3 of the US (going off memory) which was since rolled up into an expanded world conference. In this case, since most attending are individuals, not whole clubs, the roll up made sense... but before, the region level did work and was sustainable.

On a side not, they also have redistricted clubs where they use a different system to compete (taped speeches) due to the long distances between said clubs (they're typically in remote locations).

Another similarity: they're about improving peoples leadership and public speaking skills, not just winning contests. However, clubs generally do give out awards each meeting for best speaker and best table topics (impromptu speaking), of which about 3 members will perform each meeting. This competitive yet supportive atmosphere is in many ways similar to what FIRST is like to me.

The point here is that there are systems that do work, and allow for a competitive yet supportive organization, and do not require axing one to gain the other.

[lscime]

Oh man, I haven't actually posted in a long time. Also wow, did I really just manage to put off an entire night's-worth of work to read all of this thread? :eek:

Okay, so let me begin by saying the following:
1) I'm not a big fan of the new Championship format for reasons that have have already been mentioned in this thread.
2) FIRST HQ could probably handled this better, particularly in the department of asking for community input prior to (presumably) signing contracts.
3) The data do not lend themselves to the assertion that this move will significantly decrease travel expenses for the overwhelming majority of Championship-attending teams.

But for the love of all that is beautifully powder coated and covered by anti-gravity circles, this is not the start of the apocalypse; we all know that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, not 2017:
4) We don't know all of the information, that fact is both explicitly and implicitly stated by FIRST. The unknown information could be bad (e.g. all teams will now be required to build bumpers in not two, but three different colors ::safety:: ), or it could be fantastic (e.g. all teams will now receive corndogs in their KoPs).
5) Please stop with the "FIRST is clearly doing this for the money just to line their own pockets [paraphrased]." Seriously? That is above and beyond pure, unsubstantiated speculation and does nothing but unnecessarily inflame the situation.
6) This change is not equivalent to everyone getting participation trophies. Heck, the number of awards (save the big ones) given out at Championship increased by a factor of four last year and the general consensus seemed fairly positive. But now an increase of a factor of two, two years down the road is the end of the "C" in FRC. (I freely admit that there is a bigger issue with the doubling of awards like CA, WFA, etc., see (1)).
7) We should all recognize here on CD that this change doesn't really directly affect the majority of FRC teams. A giant percentage of teams only sporadically (if ever) attend Championships, so no, they're not going to be disappointed that they're not going to see their friends from the other side of the country and they're also not going to be wringing their hands over exactly who will be crowned THE World Champion. I'm not saying this to minimize people's reservations, I myself am flying to STL to be with my team and to see old friends from around the world. I'm putting it out there so that we keep in mind that most FRCers (as hard to believe as it is) actually aren't reading this thread right now.
8) I am willing to give FIRST HQ the benefit of the doubt here. They didn't make this decision in a vacuum (even if they didn't directly ask for input). You may have noticed that many people in this thread have spoken about how transformational the Championship experience was for them. In fact, many are so passionate about it that they're up at 01:30 writing a post instead of sleeping. But note that they talk about GOING to championship and SEEING and TALKING to the Poofs*, not watching a webcast of Einstein with bated breath or just HEARING about the Poofs' autonomous skillzzzz. So maybe, just maybe, when Don Bossi says "... we want to give more and more kids that 'Championship Experience' that we know is so transformative in their lives..." we actually agree with him :ahh:; even if not in the specifics.

I know this is getting super long, so I'll end it with a brief anecdote: In between trying to keep up with this thread I got an email from a newly-minted MARS alum who, in the greatest tradition of procrastination, decided to write down some of her MARS memories for a project that we call 'Marvin's Journal.' And it struck me that for every memory like this:

"I remember when we won our first team award at worlds, and screamed “WE ARE MARS” from the nosebleed section. - 2013 St. Louis World Championship"

There were two like this:

"I remember when it felt like I was changing either Marvin V’s drive belts or polycord belts every match. - 2012 Da Whole Season"

"I remember when we lost with MORT, and then became best friends. - 2011 Palmetto Regional"

And it reaffirmed my sincere belief that as long as this is how the students experience and remember FIRST, we'll be okay. We may we wish and work to make things better (as we should), and we may even gripe. But at the end of the day I'm still going spend Thursdays crawling under robots with a flashlight and an inspection checklist, and I'm still going hurt my hands clapping for that rookie team who's robot was a true GP-community-effort, and I'm definitely still going to bawl my eyes out when MARS wins Chairman's - and that's what really matters.


-Luke Scime


*Specific shout-out only because you guys are awesome and have been featured so prominently in this thread.

[Procolsaurus]

I have read this entire thread.
My personal takeaways are...
I have to attend the last world championship in 2016.
IRI in 2017 and onward is going to be even more prestigious as it truly becomes where champions are crowned.
I am not worried about the double championship, or the potential additional championships in the future. More teams attending these massive championships simply means more people will be inspired.
I am happy that FIRST is continuing to grow. :)

[Woolly]

This has been my sentiment for a long time. I was just too chicken to say it. And this is from a team who has been to the CMP 9 consecutive years (counting this year) and all but two of them are for the reasons listed above so I think we know what it's like to get there by all means.
(Once again these are my opinions, not Team 1806's or its sponsors)
Either school of thinking is counterproductive when taken to extremes. Championship needs to be diluted enough to be reasonably inclusive, yet competitive enough to be credible and provide an on field product that keeps sponsors, VIPs, and eventually the general public entertained. There also needs to be outreach and rookie teams there for various inspirational purposes.
FIRST HQ has the tough job of attempting to find the right balance to advance STEM. Problems arise and mistakes get made, even with good intentions. While there are good reasons to go to this format, there are uncertainties and issues with it that make me question if the change is worth the risk of alienating people and degrading the championship experience. FIRST really needs to respond to the concerns of the community to at the very least inspire confidence that there is a bigger, better plan waiting to be enacted.
A lot of the community here(myself included) has been motivated by trying to use the pursuit of robotic perfection as a way to advance their students' abilities as future STEM workforce members and humans in general. By lowering the ceiling of success, a bunch of students and mentors find it much harder to justify sugh a high time commitment involved in trying to build their team into Co-sort-of-World-Champion-of-<City>. Yes, it's still about the students, the sustainability of the team, and the values of FIRST, but when you take away the ability and some of the (admittedly slightly egotistical) incentive to Aim HighTM, the enthusiasm levels and ambition will falter.
Judging from this thread and awesome interactions with the FIRST community in the past, we're not short on passion and by extension enthusiasm. I'd rather not see FIRST make decisions that endanger these qualities.

[Briansmithtown]

That explains this years game. With a new championships, there's a lot of totes and not a lot of volunteers.

[Chief Hedgehog]

None of this makes any sense to me. None of it.

Cost: Spreading out any event/convention/championship does not reduce the amount of money needed to conduct it. Even if FIRST doubles the amount of teams involved (FLL, FTC, FRC) - you still need double the amount of the Volunteer Army needed to make this happen. Yes, I know that volunteers are unpaid, but there is still the issue of housing and transportation...

This is a very simplistic analogy - but most FRCers know most effective and cost-effective way to win a game of Risk: take Australia. Why? Because it is a bottleneck. The quickest way to lose Risk? Try and hold Asia. Now, this analogy is better served if we compared Australia to South America. Same amount of resources, double the expense. With one Championship, FRC had a bottleneck.

Number of teams: Here in is the real problem. Many teams struggle to get to a place where they can afford to make it to two Regionals ($9000). Now we are looking at doubling the amount of teams that can make it to a Championship event? That means that twice as many teams are going to be looking to their sponsors or their students to fund another event hundreds or thousands of miles away! We all see the threads on this forum about teams struggling to make it to Championships now - can you imagine if 800-1200 teams are qualifying for these events?

Watered down: Yes, the Championships this season seems watered down by allowing another 200 teams to qualify/waitlist. I will state this, my team made it in 2013 by winning our regional and being our region's RAS. Either way that we made it, the experience was profound on the development of our team. I think by keeping Champs open to the 6 awards offered up in each regional was sufficient.

in 2014 we did not qualify.

We came back this season with the best robot that we ever built. It was beautiful. The practice robot did everything we wanted it to do. The drive team practiced for 20 hours each week. Yet, come competition, our Comp Robot failed to connect properly with the field. We couldn't move properly until round 9 - and even then they only stacked two totes and placed a Container on top. This was a failure for FRC 4607. We knew that we had no shot at Champs, and this was fine with us. We just wanted to showcase what our robot could do... and we never were able to fulfill this. To my kids credit - they want to build a better drive train and figure out how we prevent this from happening next season. (I will be honest - I have been in a near-catatonic state ever since...) What I will state is this - our robots work great now, so look out those of you that compete at MRI and Minne-Mini.

Other Outlets: FRC would be wise to promote other outlets such as IRI, and the Minnesota State Tourney. Case in point - last season we missed out as we lost in North Star's Semis. It sucked. The kids were pissed about the ruling. But you know what happened? They came back into my shop and had a fire in their belly - they wanted to showcase the robot in the Minnesota State Tourney. They did just that finishing just behind team 2175 - the Fighting Calculators. Our alliance put up a great fight and we walked away with Runners-up at the MSHSL tourney. That Banner now hangs next to our 2013 State Champs Banner and the 2005 Girls Basketball Champions Banner in our gym.

FRC 4607 went from 8 kids interested in robotics in 2012 to over 50 kids this season. However, we did not make it last year or this year. Yet, next season we already have 40 kids grades 9-12 signed back on - and we had 12 seniors!

What FIRST needs to realize is that they need to practice what they preach. This is a competition - we want the champions. We want to know what we are up against.

And as I always tell my kids: Failure is always an option. It is what you do after you fail that defines your character.

[Karibou]

Its been a while since I've posted on CD and i havent been directly involved with a team since 2011, but for what its worth:

I can't speak for "higher level" teams who's goal is to win a world championship. I see how you're disappointed in the split. I'm not saying you're wrong for wanting to win big and be the definitive winner. But, I'd like to remind everyone that FIRST IS growing. Would you rather have one, proportional championship event, with no wait list and potentially nearly 1000 teams attending one event in several years? Or would you rather have more, equally competitive teams spread between two events? Or force teams to travel three weekends in a row at the end of a season to attend a district championship, then a super regional, then the world championship? Even two weekends for a super regional+worlds would be bad

Remember that these venue contracts have to be signed a few years in advance, and while the propositon may seem unreasonable now, it may work a lot better in 3 years when there are more, more competitive robots, from fantastic teams. You cant wait until growth happens, and then change the model that year, or even the year after. From my perspective, FIRST is just planning ahead.

Would you be more disappointed if you were a crucial component of a winning alliance and had a high performance robot, but could not attend CMP because only first round picks were invited to attend to keep the number of teams attending down, but you were the second round pick of the #8 alliance?

When I was in high school, my team's sole goal was to make it to eliminations of any event (regional or district). Our robot wasn't great. Heck, a couple of years we just wanted a working robot. Even with our bar set low, we were still inspired. It didn't matter to me who was crowned the best, all I see through my poor-performance-goggle is "those teams are awesome", not "omg 469 won CMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". 1189 is currently very much in the running for one of MI's bids to CMP. The team has not attended a Championship Event since 2005. We have had two full four-year generations go by without attending CMP. Last year, the team was one of the top teams in the state and had the opportunity to go, but couldn't for financial reasons, since they had not planned for success. They no doubt deserved to go. Its obviously a slightly different view being based out of metro Detroit, but I think 1189 can relate highly to the east coast and Midwest teams (which is quite a lot of teams) who now have a closer CMP to attend with a smaller travel budget. They would be thrilled to just be able to attend. I imagine this viewpoint is probably very different than that of a team who performs well every year and qualifies for CMP every year.

Even if FIRST had split east-west, nobody would win besides those within a 10hr drive time radius. Those in the midwest would still be faced with large travel times, just as how the west coast and other areas are still faced with high travel times for the new model. There is no perfect solution to make travel reasonable for everyone, and I fully support FIRST in their choices of cities. With the current competition model, Michigan has a huge number of teams and is sending a lot to CMP, and Texas has also seen significant growth in the past few years. A LOT of teams come from the east. If we're basically splitting east-midwest+everywhere else, I don't know how someone could argue that Detroit is better than STL diatance-wise when considering convenience for the majority of teams attending, assuming that teams will be able to pick their preferred event (and we don't know that yet). Fact: there is a higher density of teams along the east coast and in MI.

Think about the big picture. Perspective is everything.

[Nathan Pell]

To me, this is sad is a lot of change, however I can't rationalize at all this decision. But, to be blunt this decision was made over a long period of time and work. As someone who books large events, you don't sign contracts five years out in multiple cities without serious time and energy put into it.

All of our complaining isn't going to change a thing unfortunately. Even if FIRST decided to 'listen to the people' they would have same major PR Issues enormous cancellations fees.

Maybe in 2021 we can re-visit... :(

[Donut]

Coincidental timing that I just made this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1467497&postcount=139) post in another thread this week, that attending a World (or Half/Quarter/N-th Part) Championship will not be a realistic goal for teams forever with the growth of the program.

This to me is not all that different than any other high school sport. Your season qualifies you for the playoffs, and the playoffs end with one team winning the State Championship. Maybe it is different because with other sports a State Championship is the highest goal to obtain, since there is no consensus National/World Championship for most high school sports even if there are national tournaments and attempts at rankings by sites like Max Preps. If that's the case the District system will eventually solve that problem; winning a District event is like winning a meet or tournament (helps you rank highly but not required to advance to the playoffs), and winning the District Championship is like winning the State Championship. Eventually with the growth of FRC attending the World Championships could be an unknown concept and not the ultimate goal for most, it already is that way with FLL (25,000 teams with almost 100 District Championships and only about 100 teams attend the World Festival). Competing with out of state teams for high school sports is typical only of very high level programs.

Who is the National Champion for high school football? Basketball? Baseball has the Little League World Series but that is not high school teams. Eventually when your program hits a breaking point of too many teams it becomes untenable to have enough intermediate tournaments to filter down to a final champion with any credibility. Cost and time eventually become too much to attend that many events for a lot of teams, and there is also a luck factor of coming from a more difficult region. I'm not familiar with FLL at a high level but I imagine they are at that point as they can only invite 1 team per Championship tournament for each region to the World Festival based on their numbers in the marketing material. I get the argument for "one true champion" but eventually that will become an impossibility if FIRST gets an FRC team in every high school.

That said, I preferred where FRC was going with the District and Super Regional model, and think they are jumping the gun on giving up on a single World Championship (we've probably got close to 10 years before we really need to think about that). This could be a stepping stone to Super Regionals (the two events do work out for North/South SR as others have pointed out) but if that is the goal I think FIRST would be better off keeping St. Louis as is through 2017, then starting with Houston and Detroit as the Regional Championships in 2018 with a FIRST World Championship still happening. Two more years of growth is probably enough for each Regional Championship to be a 300-400 team event, and then the World Championship can be held with a smaller number of teams (200). Additional Regional Championships would be added as needed with the World Championship staying at a capped size. With this model you get the benefit of keeping the Super events capped at a size that can be more reasonably hosted in a typical sports arena/convention center combo, which is important as the 600 team event being attempted this year severely restricts your location options. I think 200-300 teams is the ideal to shoot for and whenever you push up against the 300 team limit you add another Regional Championship and reduce the At-Large bids from each that make it to the World Championship.

In the end whatever happens won't make a huge difference to me as the teams I've been with haven't attended Champs in close to a decade now. I understand the outcry from those who can count on going almost every year (the majority of ChiefDelphi's user base), but for teams that rarely qualify (the majority of FRC teams) I don't think this will change much. I just wish that the geographic repositioning would have brought things a little closer to each coast, to me the new events are still very much in the center of the country.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Coincidental timing that I just made this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1467497&postcount=139) post in another thread this week, that attending a World (or Half/Quarter/N-th Part) Championship will not be a realistic goal for teams forever with the growth of the program.



Who is the National Champion for high school football? Basketball? Baseball has the Little League World Series but that is not high school teams. Eventually when your program hits a breaking point of too many teams it becomes untenable to have enough intermediate tournaments to filter down to a final champion with any credibility. Cost and time eventually become too much to attend that many events for a lot of teams, and there is also a luck factor of coming from a more difficult region. I'm not familiar with FLL at a high level but I imagine they are at that point as they can only invite 1 team per Championship tournament for each region to the World Festival based on their numbers in the marketing material. I get the argument for "one true champion" but eventually that will become an impossibility if FIRST gets an FRC team in every high school.

That said, I preferred where FRC was going with the District and Super Regional model, and think they are jumping the gun on giving up on a single World Championship (we've probably got close to 10 years before we really need to think about that). This could be a stepping stone to Super Regionals (the two events do work out for North/South SR as others have pointed out) but if that is the goal I think FIRST would be better off keeping St. Louis as is through 2017, then starting with Houston and Detroit as the Regional Championships in 2018 with a FIRST World Championship still happening. Two more years of growth is probably enough for each Regional Championship to be a 300-400 team event, and then the World Championship can be held with a smaller number of teams (200). Additional Regional Championships would be added as needed with the World Championship staying at a capped size. With this model you get the benefit of keeping the Super events capped at a size that can be more reasonably hosted in a typical sports arena/convention center combo, which is important as the 600 team event being attempted this year severely restricts your location options. I think 200-300 teams is the ideal to shoot for and whenever you push up against the 300 team limit you add another Regional Championship and reduce the At-Large bids from each that make it to the World Championship.

In the end whatever happens won't make a huge difference to me as the teams I've been with haven't attended Champs in close to a decade now. I understand the outcry from those who can count on going almost every year (the majority of ChiefDelphi's user base), but for teams that rarely qualify (the majority of FRC teams) I don't think this will change much. I just wish that the geographic repositioning would have brought things a little closer to each coast, to me the new events are still very much in the center of the country.

I can agree with most of this - but if we allow FRC to get to a point where State Championships are enough, do we lose the community of FIRST? I will be the first to state that Minnesota's state championship lent credence to our team's success within my own school district.

However, the goal of FIRST is bigger than that - that is the magic of this program. The moment we all let go and allow regional championships be the end all, be all - we may lose everything else that makes FRC great.

[George Nishimura]

It is possible to justify moving to a two-venue championship (eg a stop-gap to deal with intermediary scalability problems). The two big problems from this announcement are:

1) How FIRST sees its programs (presumably including FRC):

"One of the important things about FIRST and maybe what separates us from other sports is that we're an inclusive organization we're about not about picking a winner at the expense of others but celebrating everybody's accomplishments and success."

2) How FIRST is willing to make and commit to big decisions without testing the waters/asking for opinions from the community beforehand

Both those are "problems" not because they are inherently wrong or broken, but they form a "big picture vision" of the future of this program that at least a significant subset of the community passionately disagree with. With those priorities, this may only be the beginning of a series of decisions with similar goals and reaction.

[pabeekm]

Drawing from my own experience of going to champs for the first time last year, the drop in competitiveness is what scares me most. As was said earlier, this kind of change could very well reduce championships to a glorified convention. My team earning a spot to champs after our first regional win in 11 years was huge to us, and the most valuable part of it to me by far was the pride in seeing how we really could hold our own amongst the best teams in the world. Knowing that we earned our place defined my experience there and my desire to earn our way to champs again.

Inflating champs to such a huge size will mean qualifications will no longer be that world class level of competition; it will be downright saturated with underperforming teams. 600 really feels like pushing it to me, but 800+ is very obviously too far; there simply aren't enough competitive teams to fill even half that quota, and the minority of downright admirable teams will become drastically scattered across the events/ fields. I can’t imagine how disappointing it would be for new students go to the world “championships”, and witness that 20%+ of the robots in their division barely (or don’t) work, and less than five robots are really worth following; that just sounds like a weaker regional.

I’m particularly irked coming from NC, because it’d be nearly impossible for my team in future years to see real world class competition anywhere other than a competitive championship (IRI will never ever be in the budget, and NC is turning into its own district next year). Plus, transportation to champs would still be nasty.

Besides the actual competing aspect, there will be a lot less for teams to learn from at champs. For example, my team is using this year at champs as a building opportunity to focus on learning from others how to improve our infrastructure/ sustainability. If champs were split in two, such an effort would be much less fruitful, because half the teams who know best about that stuff (mainly powerhouse teams) would simply not be there.

[epylko]

When I saw this announcement yesterday I was more disappointed with the locations than the splitting of the regional. As others have said, adding Houston doesn't do anything for travel for us. Detroit will cut travel time in half if we decide (and can afford) to go there.

I understand the disappointment many people feel with the split. I think they probably should have started this in 2016 instead of 2017 for one reason - the sooner they start, the sooner students who have experienced the single championship model "age out" of the competition. In 4 years, there will be no students who know the "single championship" model and "dual championships" will be the new normal.

I think dual championships might drive some different team dynamics and attitudes as well. If this change eliminates the goal of "world champion" and "win at any cost", I can envision how that might change the goal of gracious professionalism for the better.

[LeelandS]

Food for thought:

In 2008 (I picked an arbitrary year), 340 teams attended champs, out of 1499 who competed. That means the percentage of teams who attended the event was 22.6% of all teams. So almost a quarter of teams who competed in 2008 attended the event.

3 years later, in 2011, this had decreased, to 17.1%. 351 teams attended champs, while 2053 teams competed. In a 3 year span, FRC saw a near-600 team growth, but only 19 slots opened at championship. This trend continued further, into last year: 2014.

In 2014, 397 teams attended the championship event, while a whopping 2696 competed overall. That translated to 14.7% of competing teams qualifying for champs.

The point I'm driving at is, a smaller and smaller chunk of teams get to experience championships every year. People keep driving at, championships are going to be less inspiring because all the best teams aren't going to be at a single one. But what's more inspiring; seeing a "watered down" championships, or not seeing champs at all? For me, at least, as a former student turned mentor, champs was about the energy. The passion. The electricity. I don't remember a single match from when I was student at champs. But I remember being with my team, I remember running around the stadium. I remember seeing signs and decorations, hearing guest speakers celebrate us and what we do. It was the time of my life. Just being there set me down the road to where I am now. A mentor, a volunteer. A guide to these students. Words can't express how proud I am of that.

That brings us to 2015. Almost 3000 teams are competing this year, 2892. We've already been told that we will be hosting 600 teams at this event. 600/2892 = 20.7%. The highest percent we've had attending since 2008. Which is a great step forward. After an 8% decline over 7 years, we gain 6% back in one year. But what are we sacrificing to accomplish this? We are literally packing two championship events into one arena. 8 Division, two Einsteins. I'm not a logistics person, but that seems like a lot for a single venue to hold. FIRST is growing, and with that, it is becoming harder and harder to provide as many students as possible with an experience like mine. We're already packing 2 champs into one building, so doesn't the next logical step seem to be expanding?

Consider this: In 2017, we'll say 800 teams attend champs, 400 per event. let's ballpark the team count that year at 3500. Just an estimate. 800/3500 = 22.8%. Boom. We're back to where we were 7 years ago. FIRST will have more than doubled in size but we are still providing the same percentage of teams with the championship experience. Diluted? Yes. But to students who have never gone before, inspiring all the same.

I am as hardened a competitor as anyone else. My students constantly tell me to take a chill pill. But I can't. Competition is in my blood and I love pushing and driving my team to improve and do better. Yes, I would love a centralized event where the elite teams can play-off. Maybe with some relaxed rules. Some corn dogs and goats. But hey, that can't be possible, right? Oh.

Competition is exciting for me. But if we start depriving kid's learning and experience in FIRST for the sake of competition, then what have we really become? Everyone asks me if what I do is like Battlebots. And I proudly tell them no. But if FIRST is all about competition, then isn't it the same? I'm in the program to help kids learn and grow as people; a lot of people are in that same boat. And if we are going to accomplish that goal, then we need to get kids exposed to an event with the passion and energy of a world championship.

[TechGirlOnFire]

This thread is expanding much faster than I can read it. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes if I'm repeating ideas.

My thoughts as I've read through:
1) Having Super-regionals and then a Championship event adds at least one, probably two, and possibly even three weeks to the competition season (Having back to back competitions that you have to qualify for and can't plan for ahead of time is simply not feasible).
The length and intensity of competition season as it is now - at least in the district model- already stretches a lot of student's resources. With a super-regional model, we'd be running into graduation season for many people by the time champs rolls around. We'd also be looking at more mentor and volunteer burnout. Not to mention that smaller super-regionals won't be able to offer the full CMP experience, see my next point.

2) People seem to be mostly upset over a lowering of the level of competition and not being able to find out which is the best robot in the world. I'm obviously pretty alone in this sentiment, but to me, World Champs is a lot more about the gathering of the teams to learn from one another. I get a lot more out of volunteering, attending the conference talks, and perusing scholarship row than I do watching the Einstein matches. Obviously, the finals are ridiculously exciting, but for overall benefit, it's the rest of the week that I'm there for.

I know that a lot of people will argue at this point that it's the drive to be the best in the world that inspires them, but... I really don't think that that ultra-competitiveness is in the spirit of FIRST.
Mostly I want to yell at people to put the rulers away, that finding out who has the biggest --, ahem, the best robot is not the overall goal of this program. (In case you haven't heard, it's Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology). From the tone of the announcement, I think I'm on the same page as FIRST here.

3) The stated reasons for this change is
We continue to witness substantial growth of interest in our mission, our programs, and our annual Championship. Far beyond what we can currently accommodate, a growing number of young people are eager to participate and compete in our iconic, international celebration; yet due to space limitations, and sometimes travel costs, only a small fraction of teams can participate in the FIRST Championship.

I know the travel costs thing is dubious at best. Having North/South events is dumb when compared to East/West, when considering the distribution of teams. But, as numerous people have pointed out, if FIRST is releasing locations and dates, they're already pretty set in stone. Can't do anything about that.
But the other point? I think that's valid. It's no denying that FIRST is expanding, and there are a lot more kids and teams that should benefit from the CMP experience than are able to currently go. The system as it is is already pushing the accommodation resources of a major city to the breaking point. You can't get any more teams to CMPs without splitting it up.

tl;dr:
*The 'solution' of adding super-regionals will extend the season, ultimately leading to student, mentor, and volunteer burnout.
*Champs is about a lot more than who has the best robot
*FIRST is expanding and Champs needs to as well.

Finally, to get to the constructive bit, here's my suggestions:
1) Get as many teams as possible into the district model before 2017.
2) If you absolutely must know who has the best robot, have a smaller event during the summer. Or, you know, there's always IRI.
3) As an alternative to everyone just dealing with the horror of multiple world champions, split the two events into FLL/FTC and FRC.

[nuggetsyl]

In 2017 first is turning world champs into regional champs. So why can't teams get that same inspiration at a District champs model?

[efoote868]

*The 'solution' of adding super-regionals will extend the season, ultimately leading to student, mentor, and volunteer burnout.

The people talking about having a super-regional always seem to assume that teams would continue to sign up for two regional competitions before the super-regional. I'm wondering how many teams that actually qualify for and go to the Championship event through winning an event just participated in one regional.

Seems to me that the powerhouse teams sign up for 2, maybe 3 regional competitions to increase their odds for an invitation. What if to qualify for a super regional, you just need to make it to the semi-finals or win an engineering award at one regional? Then teams would still compete in their same 2 events per year prior to a championship.

[Qbot2640]

This

In 2012 we got to championship by winning a regional, but so many teams get there by other means that it is easy for a first-time championship team to get overlooked and not taken seriously. I don't want to diminish anyone's experience, but when everybody wins, what is the significance of winning? It's starting to sound like rec league soccer...everyone sign up to bring a snack at one of the events, and when you get to championship...here's your trophy and here's your Capri Sun.

I'm also concerned by this attitude. Champs as the ultimate robot competition is depressing to me ...

It was hard to try to express the complexity of my take, and yes - I am concerned by this attitude (of my own) as well...but isn't there a part of all of us that feels this way? I'm certainly not advocating doing away with all of the "non-winning" championship invitations...but it is the group of "winners" that makes the event prestigious for a Rookie All Star, or another possibly less competitive team to be there. When 400 teams became a problematic size for championship, perhaps it was time to start being a bit more selective...not less.

After reading all of these posts - and there's tons of wisdom here - I've concluded that a much better solution would be to make districts universal (with notable exceptions of course), use the district championship as the premier event to share with more teams, and keep a single championship of around 400 teams - shared with FLL and FTC...because seeing what they do, and letting them see what we do is part of the magic.

[BrennanB]

These are just my own initial thoughts. Not of my team and or members. More things to consider for you.

I'm going to pull some information from FLL, and some people are going to hate on it because to some degree FLL and FRC aren't comparable, but hang with me. It's to get perspective.

I see people talking about percentages of teams that qualify for worlds, 14-20% of all the FRC teams in first qualify for champs. For FLL, ~85 Teams qualify for world championships. There are over 25,000 FLL teams. That means a whopping 0.0034% of FLL teams qualify for the World championships...

But. That's not even the best part of it. Not every region receives a qualifying spot. Regions are given spots based on a random lottery system. So you could be the best team in the whole world, and not qualify.

Oh wait, there is more... You can only attend one regional in your allotted area. That regional is only one day long where you get maybe 2 practice matches, and 3 matches that actually count. 3 matches. One day. If you have a bad day, sucks.

But wait! FLL is cheaper, we aren't paying thousands of dollars to participate. FRC is complex, serious, and sophisticated. We aren't playing with toys.

If you fall into this category go watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--MSSAiEcT0), this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0UPV9t6nBo), this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3YvUU4jUXg). and this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCSp83oau5Y)

It's hard to understand the amount of time that these teams put into their robots to package and have them preform as well as they do. I would even argue per individual basis, it is harder to be on a world champion FLL team than a world champion FRC team. Between all the time spent fundraising for the "thousands of dollars spend on competitions our" and all nighters on our robots, FLL kids put at least the same amount of time a typical team captain of an FRC team would put in, if not more. (at high levels of play)

So what? What's the point in all of this?

FLL kids are still incredibly inspired, and incredibly inspiring. And they have way worse odd than FRC teams. These kids are not ignorant, and really do care about their projects. They are doing phenomenally well with frankly, a terrible qualifying system. FRC teams can't complain with a 14% qualification rate compared to a 0-0.0034% qualification rate. Imagine going into a competition knowing that no matter how well you do, before you even start you have no chance at qualifying.

You don't need to go to championships to be inspired.

FIRST is solving a non-existent problem of teams qualifying to champs. Inspiration will occur and lives will be changed regardless.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So then. What is the solution?

Instead of degrading the quality of FIRST Championships, increase the quality of district championships.

Don't make champs meh to the top tier teams that are doing a huge part of the volunteering, mentoring, team starting, event planning, and FIRST message spreading for us all.

Make districts a bigger deal. MSC has TV coverage, that's awesome! Find a big venue! Emulate champs to a larger degree.

Oh, and as much as it is the "all the best robots coming to the same place to compete"

I think the real magic is the "the whole world coming to compete in one place"

If the whole world isn't there, it completely loses the magic for me. Having just the winners play together isn't enough. You can talk to people freely, half the people walking on the street are from a team and it's awesome! To be having half of the world cut off from that is... Well meh.

I would much rather see a smaller percentage of teams qualify to maintain the atmosphere and quality of the event. Simply put, splitting the championships sucks.


*** I come from a a back to back qualifying FLL team
*** During my participation with FIRST, I have been on a team that has qualified 6/9 years I have participated.

[Loose Screw]

Seems to me that the powerhouse teams sign up for 2, maybe 3 regional competitions to increase their odds for an invitation. What if to qualify for a super regional, you just need to make it to the semi-finals or win an engineering award at one regional? Then teams would still compete in their same 2 events per year prior to a championship.

I know of situations in FTC where this has happened. I don't remember (and want to call out) team names, but I remember some teams in 2013/2014 FTC that didn't qualify for super regionals in their area, so they paid their way to an event further away to compete and qualify for a different super-regional.

Right now the line of competitions for Michigan FTC is:
1 or 2 districts --> states --> super-regionals --> worlds.
Before super-regionals, only 1 team from states would move on to worlds; the Inspire winner. With the addition of super-regionals, my kids could compete with high-level high school teams, and learn from them. I have no doubt the same would be true for FRC.

I would like to see FRC (and FTC) lock teams into area events so they can't steal a spot from other teams by going to an outside event.

Right now, Michigan has the set up:
2 or 3 districts (only first 2 count towards states) --> states --> worlds.

As the program grows in every state, I would like to see:
2 or 3 districts --> states --> super-regionals --> worlds.

I believe this system works great for FTC, and my kids enjoyed super-regionals just as much as I have enjoyed worlds.

[Nemo]

Thanks for the FLL perspective above.

Why isn't FTC expanding? This year, while FRC gets a 50% increase from 400 to 600, FTC has stayed the same with 128 teams out of 4000+ worldwide.

[microbuns]

As long as they end up doing some sort of North vs South match with the champions from each, with the winner being officially recognized, I'd be happy. That kind of change isn't hard to tack on to what we've heard so far.

[Sunshine]

After sleeping on it last night I think I get it. Most of us believe that we strive to get to a world championship that corresponds with a FIRST convention. I think FIRST feels that they offer a convention (workshops, vendors, great learning experiences) that also offers a competition as a side show. Not saying that I agree with their analogy but understand their reasonings. They use the venue for team and student growth. They want as many as possible to experience the great learning experience. My deep feelings (if I express them again) would only add more redundancy to an extremely long thread.

My students and team always set lofty goals. They attempt the near impossible every year. It's part of the magic of FIRST. They take one step at a time to towards greatness. Watering down their expectations and possible achievements is unacceptable in my world. Giving free passes to teams to a world championship has always been a sore spot for me. I always hoped it would get better, now it appears to have gotten worst. I'm sure the brain trust at FIRST has great intentions and a long range plan to excel. Their procedures are puzzling to me but I will remain diligent and faithful to the cause. My goals have always been student focused and I believe FIRST has those same goals.

[Mr. Tatorscout]

As long as they end up doing some sort of North vs South match with the champions from each, with the winner being officially recognized, I'd be happy. That kind of change isn't hard to tack on to what we've heard so far.

I'm trying to remember, it seems to me that we have experienced a North vs South division before in this country. Fortunately, there's no longer any residual animosity...

[Siri]

Well it sure sounds like it. And to be clear I still prefer the expanded district system. This is nothing to quit over however and I think FRC is a bigger technical challenge. Again why haven't you done VRC/FTC exclusively prior to this? The reasons for choosing FRC are not lost in this development.FRC doesn't come anywhere near a monopoly on technical difficulty (talk to Falcons about underwater robots...or, you know, watch the movie) or competitive experience (ever been to VEX?)

The reason I stick around as an FRC volunteer? I trust the program. Things like this...it's not even so much about the content, it's about the process. If you've been around long enough, you may remember the open letter for transparency for several years back signed by many if not most of the top players of the FRC community. People (and quite frankly, businesses), that put untold effort into the success of the program worldwide. You may remember the mass exodus to VEX when FIRST dropped IFI (FVC became FTC). This announcement, particularly as a gushing press release without addressing or even attempting to anticipate actual objections. This feels very much like IFI all over again.

The competition isn't even in the stadiums! The most impressive part of the Championship in its current form is getting to play in a huge stadium! Anyone who played on the pit fields in 2011 knows how much it sucked - now everyone gets that wonderfully uninspiring experience.Bumping this because I hadn't even noticed this. Can people from the cities speak to these convention centers? Going back to 400 teams, is this going to be real "fields in the pits" feel again?

Speaking of vagueness, why would FIRST announce this plan with a seemingly small amount of information fleshed out? They've determined the broad scope of the event, but a lot of the finer details haven't been revealed/worked out. Now granted they might be looking for some community input before determining things like 2 Champion alliances, 2 WCAs, etc, but I feel like FIRST is pretty good at gauging what's good for the community without it's input (Aerial Assist, district model). I feel like they've revealed only the least appealing information - although that may be intentional, ripping off the metaphorical bandaid)(emphasis mine) I agree with most of this, but the phrase "FIRST is pretty good at gauging what's good for the community without it's input" seems off. Particularly with the example of Districts, which is the exact opposite of FIRST working for community good without input. (Districts were a grassroots initiative in Michigan that FiM pushed to HQ. MAR picked it up, again grassroots, making MAR and pitching to HQ.)

tl;dr:
*The 'solution' of adding super-regionals will extend the season, ultimately leading to student, mentor, and volunteer burnout.TechFire, you're already in Districts. District Champs equals a Super Regional in the model discussed on this thread: it doesn't extend our (MAR's) season at all.

[Conor Ryan]

i heard rumors that Minute Maid Field is for the Fantasy FIRST Finalists.

[jman4747]

FRC doesn't come anywhere near a monopoly on technical difficulty (talk to Falcons about underwater robots...or, you know, watch the movie) or competitive experience (ever been to VEX?)

The reason I stick around as an FRC volunteer? I trust the program. Things like this...it's not even so much about the content, it's about the process. If you've been around long enough, you may remember the open letter for transparency for several years back signed by many if not most of the top players of the FRC community. People (and quite frankly, businesses), that put untold effort into the success of the program worldwide. You may remember the mass exodus to VEX when FIRST dropped IFI (FVC became FTC). This announcement, particularly as a gushing press release without addressing or even attempting to anticipate actual objections. This feels very much like IFI all over again.

You see what giving a preliminary plan for handling the expansion of the program gets them? This thread. If they had announced way earlier that this was the first step in making FIRST able to handle so many teams prior they would have had backlash, and yet the more you think about it the more you realize something like this was probably necessary eventually. The adding of more and more tiers to the FRC event structure is not infinitely sustainable and something else has to be done. It's just that they went for the harder sell first.

If you really think the excitement of a regional or championships is actually diminished by this than you really do care more about being the sole victor over literally everything else. Why? because the rest is still there! I think they knew exactly how we would feel initially and personally I think that the idea that this is bad is wrong. And besides being the best 3 of 3000 isn't all that bad compared to best 6 of 3,600 or 4,000 anyway.

And if you trust VEX just as much than why have you not saved the money and gone all in there? It's because the FRC challenge and community has it's own value that has been worth it along side vex, underwater, ftc, whatever. I'm arguing that A. this does not diminish any of that value and B. I'd rather the do expanded districts first before split championships but if they think this is a better first step than I can support that.

[BrennanB]

realize something like this was probably necessary eventually.

Nope it isn't. It's only "necessary" if you want to keep this 20% average of teams making it to champs, which as we have seen with FLL isn't necessary for the program to be incredibly successful.

This just kills the atmosphere of the event.

Mediocrity isn't really okay...

[jman4747]

Nope it isn't. It's only "necessary" if you want to keep this 20% average of teams making it to champs, which as we have seen with FLL isn't necessary for the program to be incredibly successful.

This just kills the atmosphere of the event.

Mediocrity isn't really okay...

Okay well excuse me for getting a wait list spot and diluting the competition with my crappy lite robot you selfish...

Any way, back to facts. #1 it won't be "20 percent" of teams as time goes on and there are more total teams competing. #2 FIRST has found a way to hold a 600 slot championship and I think it's fine for them to invite extra teams so they can make sure they know how to handle that many in the future as more qualifying events spring up. #3 having a larger field means a bigger event. I think the size and participation that newcomers see when they first visit a championship or regional is part of the sell.

[Kevin Leonard]

These are just my own initial thoughts. Not of my team and or members. More things to consider for you.

I'm going to pull some information from FLL, and some people are going to hate on it because to some degree FLL and FRC aren't comparable, but hang with me. It's to get perspective.

I see people talking about percentages of teams that qualify for worlds, 14-20% of all the FRC teams in first qualify for champs. For FLL, ~85 Teams qualify for world championships. There are over 25,000 FLL teams. That means a whopping 0.0034% of FLL teams qualify for the World championships...

But. That's not even the best part of it. Not every region receives a qualifying spot. Regions are given spots based on a random lottery system. So you could be the best team in the whole world, and not qualify.

Oh wait, there is more... You can only attend one regional in your allotted area. That regional is only one day long where you get maybe 2 practice matches, and 3 matches that actually count. 3 matches. One day. If you have a bad day, sucks.

But wait! FLL is cheaper, we aren't paying thousands of dollars to participate. FRC is complex, serious, and sophisticated. We aren't playing with toys.

If you fall into this category go watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--MSSAiEcT0), this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0UPV9t6nBo), this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3YvUU4jUXg). and this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCSp83oau5Y)

It's hard to understand the amount of time that these teams put into their robots to package and have them preform as well as they do. I would even argue per individual basis, it is harder to be on a world champion FLL team than a world champion FRC team. Between all the time spent fundraising for the "thousands of dollars spend on competitions our" and all nighters on our robots, FLL kids put at least the same amount of time a typical team captain of an FRC team would put in, if not more. (at high levels of play)

So what? What's the point in all of this?

FLL kids are still incredibly inspired, and incredibly inspiring. And they have way worse odd than FRC teams. These kids are not ignorant, and really do care about their projects. They are doing phenomenally well with frankly, a terrible qualifying system. FRC teams can't complain with a 14% qualification rate compared to a 0-0.0034% qualification rate. Imagine going into a competition knowing that no matter how well you do, before you even start you have no chance at qualifying.

You don't need to go to championships to be inspired.

FIRST is solving a non-existent problem of teams qualifying to champs. Inspiration will occur and lives will be changed regardless.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So then. What is the solution?

Instead of degrading the quality of FIRST Championships, increase the quality of district championships.

Don't make champs meh to the top tier teams that are doing a huge part of the volunteering, mentoring, team starting, event planning, and FIRST message spreading for us all.

Make districts a bigger deal. MSC has TV coverage, that's awesome! Find a big venue! Emulate champs to a larger degree.

Oh, and as much as it is the "all the best robots coming to the same place to compete"

I think the real magic is the "the whole world coming to compete in one place"

If the whole world isn't there, it completely loses the magic for me. Having just the winners play together isn't enough. You can talk to people freely, half the people walking on the street are from a team and it's awesome! To be having half of the world cut off from that is... Well meh.

I would much rather see a smaller percentage of teams qualify to maintain the atmosphere and quality of the event. Simply put, splitting the championships sucks.


*** I come from a a back to back qualifying FLL team
*** During my participation with FIRST, I have been on a team that has qualified 6/9 years I have participated.

+10

[Boltman]

Okay well excuse me for getting a wait list spot and diluting the competition with my crappy lite robot you selfish...

Any way, back to facts. #1 it won't be "20 percent" of teams as time goes on and there are more total teams competing. #2 FIRST has found a way to hold a 600 slot championship and I think it's fine for them to invite extra teams so they can make sure they know how to handle that many in the future as more qualifying events spring up. #3 having a larger field means a bigger event. I think the size and participation that newcomers see when they first visit a championship or regional is part of the sell.

Its not about you or your team and the numerous wait-list spots with the 50% expanded field of 2015 (FIRST created that with 20% or 600 going this year) ... its about sensible growth and geographical "fairness" that reflects the world and FIRST'S mission statement. Common sense is needed.

North/South was settled 150 years ago. FIRST has an obligation as a non-profit to make sensible moves that benefit its customers, not just grab more entry fees, bolster Andy Mark and hotel chains in two cities , with outrageous package pricing and weaken the competition level into two semi-events with no chance to see the best teams in one arena starting in 2017.

Thats in essence the root of the questioning going on here.. it does not add up to any good future move for newer teams like us nor long-standing established teams... it shakes the foundation of FIRST equally. Hence this thread. Hope someone decides to do a change that what was presented a day ago.

[efoote868]

FIRST has an obligation as a non-profit to make sensible moves that benefit its customers
That is exactly why they are doing this. To benefit more teams in FRC, not a select few.

and weaken the competition level.
Is a regional win today worth less today because there are more regional competitions and more teams winning them? Is a district win today worth less because there are more districts?

Is a championship win 10 years ago worth more or less because a larger percentage of teams qualified? Can you even tell me who won the championship event 10 years ago?

[Boltman]

That is exactly why they are doing this. To benefit more teams in FRC, not a select few.


Is a regional win today worth less today because there are more regional competitions and more teams winning them? Is a district win today worth less because there are more districts?

Is a championship win 10 years ago worth more or less because a larger percentage of teams qualified? Can you even tell me who won the championship event 10 years ago?

In 2017 where do you go to see the top teams under one arena?

That IS the experience, not a series of bowl like competitions. This is to showcase what students did... worldwide and see the best go head to head. That is inspiring for students and prevents the step-child feeling of one of the "championships"...we already have that, I realize Michigan is better than San Diego (and teams can choose to travel to take a hard or easy road) but at CMP its a fairly even playing field of 600 and the real cream rises regardless of region or country. With North/South that cream rising will never occur and there will not be one event to showcase the best teams..a divided and unequal FIRST.

[efoote868]

In 2017 where do you go to see the top teams under one arena?

Other than FIRST's founding year, when have you ever seen all the top teams in one arena?

[BrennanB]

Okay well excuse me for getting a wait list spot and diluting the competition with my crappy lite robot you selfish...

If you read what I wrote, that's not at all what my problem was with two championships...

Other than FIRST's founding year, when have you ever seen all the top teams in one arena?

*Most (Championships 2014)

[jman4747]

Its not about you or your team and the numerous wait-list spots with the 50% expanded field of 2015 (FIRST created that) ... its about sensible growth and geographical "fairness" that reflects the world and FIRST'S mission statement.

North/South was settled 150 years ago. FIRST has an obligation as a non-profit to make sensible moves that benefit its customers, not just grab more entry fees, bolster Andy Mark and hotel chains and weaken the competition level.

Thats in essence the root of the questioning going on here.. it does not add up to any good future move.

So now we think FIRST is a big corrupt organization that doesn't care about us and is being driven by a small business and the hotel industries of Detroit, St. Louis, and, Huston? And we think NI, Lockheed, Qualcomm, Raytheon, NASA, DARPA, Novelis, Honeywell, etc etc etc would all still be supporting it given that?

And if it's not about the wait list and other non-regional winning teams who is "weaken the competition level" referring to?

Look at the distribution of teams and available location and it pretty much has to be north/south. FRC is more NE/SE heavy if you split it east west you'll more likely end up unbalanced in numbers or distance.

[Gregor]

Is a regional win today worth less today because there are more regional competitions and more teams winning them? Is a district win today worth less because there are more districts?
?

Yes

[Boltman]

So now we think FIRST is a big corrupt organization that doesn't care about us and is being driven by a small business and the hotel industries of Detroit, St. Louis, and, Huston? And we think NI, Lockheed, Qualcomm, Raytheon, NASA, DARPA, Novelis, Honeywell, etc etc etc would all still be supporting it given that?

And if it's not about the wait list and other non-regional winning teams who is "weaken the competition level" referring to?

Look at the distribution of teams and available location and it pretty much has to be north/south. FRC is more NE/SE heavy if you split it east west you'll more likely end up unbalanced in numbers or distance.

Not corrupt, but misguided to their mission statement...over expansion too quickly, is never a good thing. That should be common sense. They just expanded by 50% now they want 100%...why?

Those sponsors could pull funding or divert... nothing is guaranteed at all. There are other options.

Championships should be hard to attend..that inspires. Otherwise we end up with mobile KOP platform bots in champs, and what does that teach and/or what message does that send to the next generation? You can skate in life?

[jman4747]

Yes

How? So having more competitors makes it easier? How does having a new regional event in another state make winning the one in your state less of an achievement? How does having more teams play two regionals make the competition easier?

Not corrupt, but misguided to their mission statement...over expansion too quickly, is not a good thing. That should be common sense. They just expanded by 50% now they want 100%...why?

Those sponsors could pull funding or divert... nothing is guaranteed.

Why is being prepared for more growth misguided?

[gblake]

As long as they end up doing some sort of North vs South match with the champions from each, ...I'll take a wild guess that the six champions (plus alternates) will all have a good shot at receiving invitations to IFI. No guarantees, but a good chance.

Teams don't have wait, like baby birds with their mouths open, for FIRST to tell them what to do; teams can just do it.

Blake

[Boltman]

How? So having more competitors makes it easier? How does having a new regional event in another state make winning the one in your state less of an achievement? How does having more teams play two regionals make the competition easier?



Why is being prepared for more growth misguided?

Again, where does one go in 2017 to view (Nearly all) of the very best teams in the world under one arena? Does the entry fee go down for skating in to one of 800-1200 spots?

[BrennanB]

Why is being prepared for more growth misguided?

The point here is that Championships isn't the place to deal with this growth. (which by the way isn't even one of the reasons they gave us for expanding champs)

[Alan Anderson]

In 2017 where do you go to see the top teams under one arena?

Indianapolis. (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=886890371334949&id=137970376226956)

[efoote868]

(which by the way isn't even one of the reasons they gave us for expanding champs)
That is the fundamental reason they're expanding champs.

[Rick]

http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/2017-first-championship-announcement (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/2017-first-championship-announcement)


For the Houston Championship, Opening Ceremonies will be held in the Toyota Center, home of the Houston Rockets. Competition matches for all programs will be held in the George R. Brown Convention Center, followed by Closing Ceremonies in Minute Maid Park, home of the Houston Astros, which has a retractable roof.

For the Detroit Championship, Opening and Closing Ceremonies will be held in Ford Field, an enclosed domed stadium, which is home to the Detroit Lions. Competition matches for all programs will be held in Cobo Center...

Remember playing in the pits in 2011? That will be the norm in these new cities. Playing in the pits is not inspiring...

The walking distance between the convention center and dome in Detroit is 18 minutes. So matches in the dome are out of the question. Part of the experience for me is watching teams play in a professional stadium. Nearly every single person involved with FIRST would never step foot on a football field with thousands cheering them on. This is a big let down for me and my team.

[Kevin Sevcik]

TechFire, you're already in Districts. District Champs equals a Super Regional in the model discussed on this thread: it doesn't extend our (MAR's) season at all.Not according to the graphic everyone's been bandying about:
http://i.imgur.com/oSNK90t.png
That shows Michigan funneling into a Super Regional. Along with a number of "District Event Candidate" regions. I'm pretty sure the whole idea was very much to funnel DCMPs into SRs into WCMP. Which makes a nice flow chart, but is definitely going to be stressful on the teams involved.

In other news, as a long time attendee of Lone Star and someone moderately familiar with the GRB, I'm not worried about the quality of the event there. GRB has 600,000 sq ft on level 1 alone, with a 35' ceiling height. 2011 pit fields and 400 pits were crammed into 340,000 sq ft. That's not even counting the 220,000 sq ft on the level 3. LSR has to sprawl to take up 100,000 sq ft of that. I'm pretty sure there's going to be enough room for nice fields and pits on level 1.

[artK]

In FIRST, a huge number of people have the philosophy of "in order to level the playing field, raise the floor, don't lower the ceiling". This is why people who suggest that FIRST make rules about limiting resources (because a powerhouse team has a good robot) get a lot of flak and a negative reputation in the community.

A lot of this discussion about people disliking the Championshplit probably stems from the fact that FIRST has lowered the ceiling, and the floor. I suspect that a lot of the backlash is from the ceiling being lowered.

Personally, I thought at first that 8 divisions would be a silly idea, but as I think about it more, while it would lower the ceiling for a division win, the expansion would allow more teams to see the best, learn from them, become more competitive, and it would (theoretically) get back to a point where a division win then would be just as much as a division win last year. Had the 2015 championships been the model for the future, the lowest a division ceiling could be would be the ceiling this year, and this year is looking pretty good.

Running the Championshplit would lower the ceiling of all major awards to an irreversible low, and the lowering from 8 divisions would only compound the lowered ceiling. The ceiling would be so low that division champions would go from 12 -> 16 -> 32 -> 64 in under 5 years. The ceiling being that low would reduce the inspiration to the floor, and the floor would rise much slower than 8 divisions ever would. This is why I dislike this idea.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I think BrennanB was totally spot on. And not just that, why is FLL and FTC still a side child? I really am in favor of them getting vastly more qualification spots. Though teams may still be inspired be and their best to win their FLL region competition, I'm sure they would love a chance to compete with the best of the best at worlds. I'm not too familiar with FTC so I can't speak on their experience in competition but I'm sure both programs would love and deserve to have way more spots at worlds. And if people want a current solution to both problems right now, I'll bring up what I brought up before. Make one venue FTC/FLL champs and one venue for FRC champs. Imagine how many more teams could qualify through FLL and FTC by doing this and how many more matches all their teams would get with drastically increased space for more fields. Everyone's talking about FRC like it's the only program that inspires people but its not. We take up so much space that FLL and FTC had to be booted from the dome just so we can still have them around. They deserve their own championships where they are not the side childs especially since they have to be victorious over way more teams than an FRC team. Getting to worlds is much much harder for those teams but seem to think FRC is the immediate problem.

[OZ_341]

One practical problem that I see should be so obvious to anyone that has tried to put on a very large event or to anyone that has ever tried to keep any two complex endeavors identical.

Over time, these two "Championships" will not be the same experience. Eventually one "Championship" will be regarded as "Better" that the other. There will be "Haves" and "Have Nots". Teams will start to invent reasons why they should be allowed to attend the "better" Championship and FIRST will allow this to happen for special circumstances.

If you consider all of the factors involved such as competitiveness, chemistry of attending teams, weather, flight costs, logistics, food, quality of the volunteer base, sponsorships, sponsor activities, special events, celebrity appearances, local sightseeing, etc., there is no way the experience will be the same.

I will not venture to guess which will be the better Championship and its not an appropriate discussion to have here. However the fact remains that one Championship will eventually be perceived as better than the other. Its just in the nature of things.

[jman4747]

The point here is that Championships isn't the place to deal with this growth. (which by the way isn't even one of the reasons they gave us for expanding champs)

The growth will show up at championships as the number of teams and subsequently regional/districts increases and more total teams will thus qualify for worlds.

The district model has limits to how many tiers can be reasonably added and then this or similar would become necessary for the championships anyway. What this year has shown is that FIRST may be able to have two 600 team events which means a while before there are enough districts to necessitate tearing.

Perhaps they calculated that the tiers would eventually be more expensive and doing this first allows for the program growth to bring more funding over time to help pay for that? There are too many things we don't know about how hard FIRST is to run and we shouldn't throw them under the bus for it

[Kevin Sevcik]

In FIRST, a huge number of people have the philosophy of "in order to level the playing field, raise the floor, don't lower the ceiling". This is why people who suggest that FIRST make rules about limiting resources (because a powerhouse team has a good robot) get a lot of flak and a negative reputation in the community.

A lot of this discussion about people disliking the Championshplit probably stems from the fact that FIRST has lowered the ceiling, and the floor. I suspect that a lot of the backlash is from the ceiling being lowered.

Personally, I thought at first that 8 divisions would be a silly idea, but as I think about it more, while it would lower the ceiling for a division win, the expansion would allow more teams to see the best, learn from them, become more competitive, and it would (theoretically) get back to a point where a division win then would be just as much as a division win last year. Had the 2015 championships been the model for the future, the lowest a division ceiling could be would be the ceiling this year, and this year is looking pretty good.

Running the Championshplit would lower the ceiling of all major awards to an irreversible low, and the lowering from 8 divisions would only compound the lowered ceiling. The ceiling would be so low that division champions would go from 12 -> 16 -> 32 -> 64 in under 5 years. The ceiling being that low would reduce the inspiration to the floor, and the floor would rise much slower than 8 divisions ever would. This is why I dislike this idea.So back in 2003 when 291 of about 746 teams (39%!) made it to Champs, we must've been doing a terrible job of inspiring people at that competition. I mean, we were because it was the most poorly thought out layout for Champs EVER, and HQ's poor planning gave Houston a bad rep that has apparently lasted to this day... But I don't the the size of the event relative to the field of teams had anything to do with it. Heck, I'm pretty sure way back in the dawn of time, over 50% of the teams that competed ended up at Nationals. I don't really think that made Nationals any worse or less inspiring.

[Michael Blake]

I say, "One Championship to rule them all."


Sorry... just had to do that... geek spasm... lol

--Michael Blake

[Siri]

Not according to the graphic everyone's been bandying about:
http://i.imgur.com/oSNK90t.png
That shows Michigan funneling into a Super Regional. Along with a number of "District Event Candidate" regions. I'm pretty sure the whole idea was very much to funnel DCMPs into SRs into WCMP. Which makes a nice flow chart, but is definitely going to be stressful on the teams involved.Hi Kevin,

I know what the 2011 graphic says. However, that is not only model under discussion here. The post I replied to was referring to the 4-tier plan as if it was the only one in this thread (or considered at all), and presented serious objections that have been discussed several times already. She opens with saying that she hasn't followed the discussion closely, so I was pointing out the previously discussed common alternative that addressed her objections. I may have misjudged the balance of opinions between the two models. This is an unknown, but if you think so, I apologize.

Thanks for the GRB info, as well. I feel better about the whole fields in the pits issue.

You see what giving a preliminary plan for handling the expansion of the program gets them? This thread. If they had announced way earlier that this was the first step in making FIRST able to handle so many teams prior they would have had backlash, and yet the more you think about it the more you realize something like this was probably necessary eventually. The adding of more and more tiers to the FRC event structure is not infinitely sustainable and something else has to be done. It's just that they went for the harder sell first.I'm not sure why you're conflating any arbitrary "preliminary plan" with this particular announcement. Yes, FIRST has a sustainability and scalability problem. That does not necessitate this "hard sell" as you call it, and I don't understand why HQ would think a hard sell is wise based on history.

Asserting the inevitability of this thread in response to a legitimately transparent process is a serious claim to base on a single, non-transparent data point. It's a particularly serious one considering it's against precedent in the community, and no one's complaining sustainability isn't a challenge. Consider the 2011 vision. Backlash? Oh yeah. But nothing like this. Because it wasn't signed contracts with zero input. FIRST spent years at Worlds and in its online presence explaining goals, addressing concerns, being transparent about the process. Was it perfect? No. But was it this? Hah.

This announcement demonstrates a basic lack of willingness to engage that stands contrary to past successes. Consider again the unified Districts and District Point system discussion. Ongoing, for years. Responsive to issues like interdistrict play, slot distribution, consistency, on and on. Wild cards. Even in cases without direct results, HQ at least engaged the objections beforehand and explained themselves. When they didn't, they felt it. They're feeling it now. Look even at the previous bids for the Worlds city. This? I really don't understand your conflation of this with, well...anything. Anything good, at least. (See FVC/FTC)

If you really think the excitement of a regional or championships is actually diminished by this than you really do care more about being the sole victor over literally everything else. Why? because the rest is still there! I think they knew exactly how we would feel initially and personally I think that the idea that this is bad is wrong. And besides being the best 3 of 3000 isn't all that bad compared to best 6 of 3,600 or 4,000 anyway.While I am not personally one of the people that's particularly upset about the two winning alliances aspect, the root change is not that there are two "sole victors" or 8 robots instead of 4. The central objection isn't that two is larger than one. The objection is that the process by which those two alliances develop is entirely different, and to some people, highly objectionable. I see their point.

And if you trust VEX just as much than why have you not saved the money and gone all in there? It's because the FRC challenge and community has it's own value that has been worth it along side vex, underwater, ftc, whatever. I'm arguing that A. this does not diminish any of that value and B. I'd rather the do expanded districts first before split championships but if they think this is a better first step than I can support that.I would very much appreciate it if you ceased putting words in my mouth. I did not indicate that I trust VEX just as much as FRC--or not, for that matter. I said that my trust is FRC is diminished by tactics like this, and can diminish to the point where I prefer my loyalty to VEX (or anything) over that of FRC. It's not just about the substance of this change; part of the value of FIRST is the trust placed in it. I understand your argument that this move does not affect the value you see in FRC. I understood that the first time you said it. I would appreciate if you did not straw-man me simply because my definition of an organization's value and the derivative thereof differs from your own.

You trust HQ that this is the best move, and you can support it. Good on you, I honestly hope you get the value you want from it, and I suspect you will. I don't understand why this puts you in a position to say that I'm wrong simply because I do not.

[Jared Russell]

The only way a four-tier system works is if the final tier (where the Super Regional/FIRST "Championship" winners play the last couple matches) is kept to a very small number of teams. It would be cool to send the last 4 alliances to one central location (on FIRST's dime, and on a weekend to avoid missing work/school) to do a polished, professionally-produced, live televised 2 hour "Superbowl"...

Get Al Michaels and Dave Verbrugge to do match commentary. Get Grant Imahara and Erin Andrews to do sideline interviews. Use the lead time to do in-depth exposes on the teams and students involved. Invite VIPs and give them the red carpet treatment in a more intimate, less overwhelming venue than a football stadium with thousands of teams. Have simultaneous live viewing parties around the world hosted by FRC teams, ala kickoff.

I think it could be pretty cool if done right. I'd still prefer to see a District Event -> Super Regional -> World Championship format, but this would make the best of the changes that have seemingly already been finalized.

(Oh, and let teams sign up for a first-come, first-served list for swapping "Championships" if they desire)

[MrRoboSteve]

Hard to square the "they're not being transparent" calls on this thread with the availability of presentations like this one (http://www.slideshare.net/ne-first/ne-first-town-hall-meetings-ct), dating back nearly three years, that show clear efforts to present plans and gather feedback.

18818

Oh, and what about this blog entry? Here's a task force, a majority of whom are out in the field, looking at champs eligibility.

http://community.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-2015-FIRST-Championship-and-beyond-Eligibility

Longer-Term Changes

To get serious now. While changes for 2015 Championship eligibility were easy for us, we see a problem on the horizon. We project that within a few years, our current system of Championship eligibility for Regionals will result in an overbooked situation. The task force continues to work on longer-term changes, and will release information on eligibility for later Championships by the end of October. You should know, though, that for us to ensure we don’t exceed our Championship capacity in later years, we will likely need to change eligibility rules, so some teams that have been eligible in the past will no longer be eligible. These won’t be easy decisions for us, but we are working very carefully to ensure the fairest result possible, and we will detail the reasons for our decisions when the information is released.


Hmmm. Could it be that the field/community feedback was "we don't want a lower percentage of teams eligible for champs?", instead pushing for an increase in capacity?

[Joe G.]

The only way a four-tier system works is if the final tier (where the Super Regional/FIRST "Championship" winners play the last couple matches) is kept to a very small number of teams. It would be cool to send the last 4 alliances to one central location (on FIRST's dime, and on a weekend to avoid missing work/school) to do a polished, professionally-produced, live televised 2 hour "Superbowl"...

Get Al Michaels and Dave Verbrugge to do match commentary. Get Grant Imahara and Erin Andrews to do sideline interviews. Use the lead time to do in-depth exposes on the teams and students involved. Invite VIPs and give them the red carpet treatment in a more intimate, less overwhelming venue than a football stadium with thousands of teams. Have simultaneous live viewing parties around the world hosted by FRC teams, ala kickoff.

I think it could be pretty cool if done right. I'd still prefer to see a District Event -> Super Regional -> World Championship format, but this would make the best of the changes that have seemingly already been finalized.

(Oh, and let teams sign up for a first-come, first-served list for swapping "Championships" if they desire)

I completely agree that a small championship with larger "showcase" events earlier in the year is probably ultimately the best approach to satisfy need to have both a conclusive championship matchup and a spectacle the scale of the current format championship, especially since the consistently extreme quality level at this final tier would be perfect for mass exposure. I feel as though you would have to make it a little larger though, just enough to allow it to play out as a traditional event with quals/alliance selection/elims (although I could also see a number of in-between options, with performance from previous events somehow weighing into the rankings, allowing for shorter quals matches and potentially a longer form elimination tournament).

This would prevent a problem which would arise in any setup where you carry alliances across tournaments: What if a team, for whatever reason, has to decline the invitation? It would also allow an alliance selection for the championship of the world to occur in a single division format. This has been impossible with the current champs setup for a very, very long time, but it may do a great deal to help determine the "true" best robots. I can think of numerous examples of "what if?" alliances which were never able to happen due to division lines. By making picking a free for all among teams who achieve an elite level of performance (probably some autobids+district point rankings at the north and south events), you can create some mind boggling alliance pairings.

[MrRoboSteve]

The only way a four-tier system works is if the final tier (where the Super Regional/FIRST "Championship" winners play the last couple matches) is kept to a very small number of teams. It would be cool to send the last 4 alliances to one central location (on FIRST's dime, and on a weekend to avoid missing work/school) to do a polished, professionally-produced, live televised 2 hour "Superbowl"...

Get Al Michaels and Dave Verbrugge to do match commentary. Get Grant Imahara and Erin Andrews to do sideline interviews. Use the lead time to do in-depth exposes on the teams and students involved. Invite VIPs and give them the red carpet treatment in a more intimate, less overwhelming venue than a football stadium with thousands of teams. Have simultaneous live viewing parties around the world hosted by FRC teams, ala kickoff.

This is a great concept.

[bduddy]

Hard to square the "they're not being transparent" calls on this thread with the availability of presentations like this one (http://www.slideshare.net/ne-first/ne-first-town-hall-meetings-ct), dating back nearly three years, that show clear efforts to present plans and gather feedback.

18818Yes, and then they release something completely different without any notice, and present it as a done deal.

[Siri]

Yes, and then they release something completely different without any notice, and present it as a done deal.Exactly. Did anyone outside of HQ know anything about this? We've gotten definitive "no"s from a number of WFAs, HOFs, Chiefs...nothing. I'm not even sure upset is the right word for me about that. I'm just...baffled. We'd really been building up the examples of transparency there for a while.

I would PPV to watch Jared's red carpet superbowl.

[MikeE]

A response on FRC Blog

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Were-Listening

[Citrus Dad]

One possible solution for evening out the competitiveness of the two events is to rotate geographic regions attending each event. For example it could be four regions:

- NE US + Canada
- SE US w/Texas
- Upper Midwest
- West + Rest of World

The middle 2 regions may never meet each other, but the other 2 could alternate sites each year.

Other regional alignmnets might choose to split it down the Detroit-St. Louis-Houston axis and rotate among all 4 regions.

[Cory]

This is a great concept.

Except still super flawed because the alliances would all be formed geographically and as such would probably be less competitive (and not as compelling for TV) than a situation where district champs are expanded and retitled as "super regionals" that then feed one central championship event with fewer teams.

[Jared Russell]

Except still super flawed because the alliances would all be formed geographically and as such would probably be less competitive (and not as compelling for TV) than a situation where district champs are expanded and retitled as "super regionals" that then feed one central championship event with fewer teams.

Allowing teams to shuffle between events (with provisions to preserve total numbers and always let local teams attend the nearer event if they want) would break down the barriers at zero cost to FIRST.

I think our collective competitive juices could help keep the events more or less balanced. For every team that thinks "I want to be on an alliance with 1114!", there is one that thinks "I want to go to the other event and meet them in the Superbowl". Plus there are still 'random' divisions at each event.

[PayneTrain]

Except still super flawed because the alliances would all be formed geographically and as such would probably be less competitive (and not as compelling for TV) than a situation where district champs are expanded and retitled as "super regionals" that then feed one central championship event with fewer teams.

Then you invite the 4 winners, and the HoF finalist, and the top 25 remaining teams from each zone for a double division, 120 team IRI style event.

[Cory]

Then you invite the 4 winners, and the HoF finalist, and the top 25 remaining teams from each zone for a double division, 120 team IRI style event.

You know what you'd have at that point?

The (slightly modified) original plan of super regionals feeding into CMP.

Would anyone have been pissed off if they announced that DCMPs would be expanded to form super regionals and then those super regionals would feed the CMP you're talking about? Probably not.

[Conor Ryan]

Allowing teams to shuffle between events (with provisions to preserve total numbers and always let local teams attend the nearer event if they want) would break down the barriers at zero cost to FIRST.

I think our collective competitive juices could help keep the events more or less balanced. For every team that thinks "I want to be on an alliance with 1114!", there is one that thinks "I want to go to the other event and meet them in the Superbowl". Plus there are still 'random' divisions at each event.

A little league world series format would be interesting, it would really help with regional influence, would a TV Viewer rather say go 1114! Or go Team Ontario! If a Superbowl, TV style event happens, and the Championship acts as a qualifier for it you really need to design the event contestants for a TV audience. The community still has the ability to do IRI type stuff on their own.

[bduddy]

Allowing teams to shuffle between events (with provisions to preserve total numbers and always let local teams attend the nearer event if they want) would break down the barriers at zero cost to FIRST.

I think our collective competitive juices could help keep the events more or less balanced. For every team that thinks "I want to be on an alliance with 1114!", there is one that thinks "I want to go to the other event and meet them in the Superbowl". Plus there are still 'random' divisions at each event.Given the responses to this proposal so far, doesn't it seem like most of the teams want to congregate at a single location?

[Michael Hill]

I really would like to see an actual champion alliance that results. As it is with championships, we're (somewhat) randomly placed into divisions already, so if we were in Galileo and 254 was in Newton and 1114 in Curie (sorry to keep picking on these two teams), we were never going to play against each other anyway. I think what could happen is we have division champions, but we have Einstein a couple weeks later in another location where all the division winners come play tournament style. I don't like the idea, but it's the only way I think we could fairly crown a victor with separate championship events. I don't like it for two reasons, yet another place to get hotels/need leave for work/etc. And the other is nobody leaves either championship event with any resolution. However, some good could come out of it. It could leave a couple of weeks to hype up the competition. Having just an Einstein field with 8 alliances would be short enough to actually provide a TV special if they found a station that would air it. You also invite representatives of teams that won "Einstein"-level awards and award them live on TV.

Again, this has a lot of flaws, and I would 100% prefer a larger event. However, if it HAS to be split into 2 separate events, winners of both events should play each other at some point.

[Jonathan Norris]

http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/2017-first-championship-announcement (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/2017-first-championship-announcement)



Remember playing in the pits in 2011? That will be the norm in these new cities. Playing in the pits is not inspiring...

This is probably my second biggest issue with the whole concept, playing all your matches in a Convention Center just cheapens the whole experience. FIRST is trying to sell this to us by saying that getting more teams to Championship(s) will increase the number of students that you can inspire, but if you are vastly cheapening the experience by playing in the convention center it will a be much less inspiring experience. I'm so disappointed...

Welcome to the FIRST Robotics Expo.

[Citrus Dad]

Except still super flawed because the alliances would all be formed geographically and as such would probably be less competitive (and not as compelling for TV) than a situation where district champs are expanded and retitled as "super regionals" that then feed one central championship event with fewer teams.

I'm not sure that geographically-determined alliances are less compelling for TV. Think about "up close and personal" at the Olympics (as incredibly annoying as those are to specific sport fans). TV LOVES storylines, particularly for sports/events that viewers are less familiar with. The Super Bowl doesn't need them, but the networks use it for badminton at the Olympics.

[Citrus Dad]

I strongly urge that many of you who are concerned about this organize yourselves to make a set of coherent alternative proposals to present at the town meeting. Given the likelihood that the locations are contractually locked in, keep those sites in your proposal structures.

I also suggest that you start a new thread to organize this presentation, and select specific presenters. Also prepare presentation materials, and even budget and manpower estimates. The more professional and complete, the more seriously it will be taken.

[Matt_Boehm_329]

This is probably my second biggest issue with the whole concept, playing all your matches in a Convention Center just cheapens the whole experience. FIRST is trying to sell this to us by saying that getting more teams to Championship(s) will increase the number of students that you can inspire, but if you are vastly cheapening the experience by playing in the convention center it will a be much less inspiring experience. I'm so disappointed...

Welcome to the FIRST Robotics Expo.

It is quite a different experience playing in a stadium and watching from those seats than it is playing in a convention center sitting on bleachers. I drove in division finals in 2009 and coming out and playing in a stadium was a crazy experience

[dsergison]

http://i.imgur.com/U7Hfw.gif

[kristinweiss]

I was involved with FRC for three years and am now a first year mentor. My team was started in 2013 and up until this year, my team has never qualified for worlds. In 2013, I was named a Dean's List finalists and traveled to worlds with my mom and two of my mentors. The experience of walking around the pits and meeting teams from all over the world inspired me to do everything I could to get my team there one day to experience the energy and atmosphere that is unique to the world championships. When I returned home from St. Louis, I was beyond excited to get a start preparing the team for the future year's competition, but was disappointed when my team was not as enthusiastic as I was. Going into the 2014 season, my team went through some major challenges including losing our work space and being kept from our shop for over a week due to snow. Almost half of our team were seniors and most of them had "seniority" and barely showed up. Our team turned into a small group of dedicated students who spend every waking hour working on robotics. To keep us motivated, we would often live stream other regionals while we worked, in particular waterloo. I remember seeing how excited the other kids on my team were to see teams such as 254 and 1114 compete, and I remember how excited I was when I was able to tell them that I had met students from the teams at worlds and gotten to see their past robots in person. Fast forward to this year. I am now in college but have come back to mentor my team, particularly in outreach with the goal of winning EI or RCA. Most of the students I was working with on the team had never watched a chairmans video or heard of any of the big teams, so I gave them the assignment of watching the HoF chairmans videos from the past several years. Just this task alone got them inspired to work their butts off when they realized that for the past 13 years, our team has been doing the same things as some of these teams and our team could actually win an award. And they did. My kids won the EI award at the Peachtree regional and were invited to worlds for the first time in our team's history. I have never seen my team so excited because all of their work paid off and they earned a spot at worlds instead of just piggybacking off of another team or getting a wildcard spot. Since finding out that they are going to worlds, all they can talk about is how excited they are to meet the big teams and possibly get to play with them. I know for a fact that one of the guys on the team will full on fangirl if he gets the chance to meet 254, and quite honestly, nothing makes me more proud. I know that the experience of getting to be at worlds with all of the teams that they look up to will help my team be inspired to continue doing well and push themselves. My fear with the spilt of worlds into two championships is many more teams will be able to qualify for worlds without earning it, and will be less inspired to work harder next year if they know that they can just slide by and still make it. Also, every team has those couple of teams that they idolize, and getting to meet them is basically like meeting a celebrity. If there are two championships, teams may never get to meet their idols and compete with them which makes them less motivated to get to worlds in the future. I'm sorry for how long this post is but FIRST really did shape me into who I am today and I want future students to be able to get the experience that I got out of it!

[rsegrest]

Connor,
Anyone in the FIRST organization that thinks this is a good idea clearly does not understand this program or share the same goals as many of the teams that participate in it, and they should not be allowed to hold their position any longer.
Emphasis mine and really? Who are we talking about? The people who are FIRST employees who deal with the administrative logistics of FIRST or the volunteers in terms of coaches/mentors/field volunteers? Please explain. I only ask because somewhere else in this thread one poster got irritated with another because they felt like they were being told to just 'sit down and accept this...' Are you really saying that anyone who happens to be reserving judgment or may even like this idea should quit FIRST?

popnbrown
…remember that we are ultimately here trying to inspire students from all different backgrounds that not only STEM is a great opportunity, but that a little inspiration (in whatever form) can go a long way.
Emphasis mine and definitely agreed!!

Kevin
In other news, as a long time attendee of Lone Star and someone moderately familiar with the GRB, I'm not worried about the quality of the event there.
Ditto. LSR is our home event and has been very well run over the course of our 8 years there. I have no doubt that GRB and Houston teams would give a heck of a Texas welcome to everyone!

LeelandS
So I've sat here and read every post on the 16 pages of content in this thread. And it has made me very depressed....because of the response by the community.
To be honest I skimmed some of them because now it's up to 43 but me too. I completely understand that everyone has been caught off-guard and wanted to vent but please remember that our students are reading this too...prime example below...

AndrewPospeshil
I only suggest CD members (and people not associated with the decision making process in general) to consider what you post in this thread - As a student it is by no means my job, duty, or responsibility to police what others say and post, but it appears some people are allowing their emotions to get ahead of themselves.
Out of the mouths of babes…

As far as districts go, remember that not everyone is there yet, not everyone is sold on the idea yet, and we are being pushed to have them in place by 2017. This means that 2017 will be a double-whammy year for many teams (move from regionals to districts and the championship split). Personally speaking, if you have that many concerns step up and volunteer to be on a committee to help steer things.

I also know that several things were said to me recently by different parties that I will leave here with you.


“Entry into championships is going to become a more difficult goal to attain.” – It seems to me that the split makes champs easier to get into. The only thing I can guess from this statement combined with 'the announcement' is the eventual implementation of an ultimate champ model that is only attainable via the two championships.

“Dean’s vision is to have FIRST programs in every school.” – In light of this the two championships makes sense. More opportunities to advance to a national level.

“Big changes are coming.” – Wow…this was an understatement.


The other thing I will point out as far as ‘money grabbing’ etc. is that hosting a regional is insanely expensive and time consuming. Rumor has it that of the four Texas regionals two break-even and two lose money (yes I know this is another reason to push for district play in Texas). How many others are there like ours?

And after 43 pages of ‘venting’ Frank still does get it…

Franks Blog
In all of this, we need your help in doing what you do best – solve problems. I’m personally very interested in hearing your ideas about how we may be able to arrange for final matches between the winners of FIRST Championship Houston and FIRST Championship St. Louis.
Let’s work together to make these future Championships great.
Frank

[gblake]

Folks,

I have a question. What do the many people posting in this thread want to accomplish?

Venting or registering your opinion is interesting, but ... I haven't seen many people write that they plan to do A at B (or tell A to B) in order to accomplish C.

If you want to affect the plans for 2016 (doubtful), the plans for 2017 (maybe), or the plans for 2018 (decent chance), I recommend finding the person or place that accepts inputs/votes/advice from folks like you, and uses those to influence what will happen in 2016/2017/2018.

I suspect that getting virtually bent out of shape (or not) here in a CD thread is not the most effective way to exert your influence. It can be interesting, it can be fun, it can be an outlet, but ... I don't think it is the most effective way to influence FIRST's plans.

I suggest mulling things over for a while, and then investing some time in a method that will be (more) effective.

Blake

[bduddy]

Folks,

I have a question. What do the many people posting in this thread want to accomplish?

Venting or registering your opinion is interesting, but ... I haven't seen many people write that they plan to do A at B (or tell A to B) in order to accomplish C.

If you want to affect the plans for 2016 (doubtful), the plans for 2017 (maybe), or the plans for 2018 (decent chance), I recommend finding the person or place that accepts inputs/votes/advice from folks like you, and uses those to influence what will happen in 2016/2017/2018.

I suspect that getting virtually bent out of shape (or not) here in a CD thread is not the most effective way to exert your influence. It can be interesting, it can be fun, it can be an outlet, but ... I don't think it is the most effective way to influence FIRST's plans.

I suggest mulling things over for a while, and then investing some time in a method that will be (more) effective.

BlakeWell, this is a discussion forum, so I'm not entirely sure what else you expect to happen here.
I recommend finding the person or place that accepts inputs/votes/advice from folks like you, and uses those to influence what will happen in 2016/2017/2018.
There isn't one.

[Rachel Lim]

If you want to affect the plans for 2016 (doubtful), the plans for 2017 (maybe), or the plans for 2018 (decent chance), I recommend finding the person or place that accepts inputs/votes/advice from folks like you, and uses those to influence what will happen in 2016/2017/2018.


That's what we're doing. See http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Were-Listening--FIRST does listen to CD. I do agree that this thread grew very quickly (and perhaps got a bit out of hand), but the fact that everyone feels so passionately about this subject made FIRST take a look.


There isn't one.

There's CD. It's not official, but it does work. I doubt the answer to Q461 would have been changed otherwise, and the same for the follow up blog post about the split champs.

[Mr. Tatorscout]

So I mentioned to a rookie parent that they were splitting champs to Houston and Detroit. He's not from this country and the first thing out of his mouth was "Why wouldn't they do east coast/west coast?"

Really, Houston and Detroit? Last I looked, the US is longer than it is tall. Pretty simple geometry proof can be inferred here.

[gblake]

...
That's what we're doing. See http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Were-Listening--FIRST does listen to CD. I do agree that this thread grew very quickly (and perhaps got a bit out of hand), but the fact that everyone feels so passionately about this subject made FIRST take a look.

...

There's CD. It's not official, but it does work. I doubt the answer to Q461 would have been changed otherwise, and the same for the follow up blog post about the split champs.
Trust me, for exerting the sort of influence most folks writing here appear to want to exert, there are better avenues than CD. Finding them (it's not that hard), and learning how to use them, is an exercise left up to the reader.

For those authors who simply want to do some discussing of this particular done-deal. This is a great place to do that.

Blake
PS: CD is also a great place to do many other things - I love it; and I hold its owners/admins in very high regard.

[XenObliv]

There are many things wrong with this approach, meanwhile the number of things that are right seem either insignificant or feel nonexistent. It was said that "We would like more teams to have the Championship experience." Well by being in FRC for now five years I define the "Champs experience" by being able to see the amazingly design robots from all across the World. It's been said that "It's about the journey not the destination." -Carolee Dean I always have viewed the Inspiration aspect as the build season, not the competition. If we don't find a winner, you defeat the purpose of a Competition. The name no longer fits the game. FIRST should just change the name to FIRST ROBOTICS LEAGUE (FRL). By not crowning a World Champion the reason OF the World Championship is now brought into question.

[jlmcmchl]

If we don't find a winner, you defeat the purpose of a Competition.

Frank specifically noted in the new blog post that they will be looking into how to handle having two winning alliances from the championships.

I’m personally very interested in hearing your ideas about how we may be able to arrange for final matches between the winners of FIRST Championship Houston and FIRST Championship St. Louis.

[dodar]

Frank specifically noted in the new blog post that they will be looking into how to handle having two winning alliances from the championships.

That means they dont have one in the plan they are putting forth for the future of Champs. So, as of now, we wouldnt have a single World Champion Alliance.

[pntbll1313]

So I mentioned to a rookie parent that they were splitting champs to Houston and Detroit. He's not from this country and the first thing out of his mouth was "Why wouldn't they do east coast/west coast?"

Really, Houston and Detroit? Last I looked, the US is longer than it is tall. Pretty simple geometry proof can be inferred here.

I'm not sure it's that simple. You can't look at the US in terms of land. I think you need to look at it based on team density. If you were to split the US down the middle I would say that the number of teams in the Eastern half (http://batchgeo.com/map/72217533bb068ec6452f4770fd12be47) of the US is over 80%. (that map is from 2013, so maybe it's different now?)

If anyone has a lot of time on their hands, or knows a way to do it quickly, I would be interested to hear the best 2 cities to minimize driving distance for the majority of teams so that it could be split into two equally populated Super Regionals. I don't know where to draw the line, but I would say Everyone from Illinois over would be considered a "West" team. Maybe East/West is the best way, but I haven't heard anyone actually give a better suggestion when they are complaining that North/South is wrong.
(For the record Detroit is maybe a 10.5 hour bus instead of a 9 hour bus for my team, and neither is as warm and as I'd like)

[the_godfaubel]

So I've been thinking about ways to potentially make the proposed system work. The one that makes the most sense in my mind goes like this:

1. Hold the two Championships and go about the things that Championships do (except maybe changing the name to something like Super Regional).
2. Each Championship will have FOUR divisions.
3. Each division finalist will be invited to a Grand Championships to crown a true Champion. Thus EIGHT alliances from each "Super Regional" (SR) and a total of 64 teams invited.
4. The division winners will advance to Einstein at each SR to determine a Champion of the event.
5. Each of the 16 alliances advancing to the Grand Championships will play 15 matches (One against every other competing alliance) to determine seeding for the Final Tournament. The winners of the two SR will be awarded the top 2 seeds and number 1 will be determined by the 15 matches.
6. Conduct the Tournament as normally run to determine a true Champion.

I believe this could work, but I think it would work best in an EAST/WEST system where the Grand Championships would be held somewhere in the Midwest.

[JoeXIII'007]

Writer's block on a presentation I'm giving at a conference in late May shifted my attention to this ripple in the FIRST universe which was throwing off strong enough of a signal for me to log in to CD for the first time in years and pitch in some commentary.

I haven't been too terribly involved in FIRST since 2012 when 66 and 470 we're still separated by school district. I pondered volunteering this year, but didn't get past getting an account on VIMS. Before 2012, my years of heavy involvement in FIRST were between 2002 and 2008, my wonderful teenaged life.

So about this shift in championship event scheduling and locating. First of all: yay Detroit! There's a lot to be excited about that city, and this only adds to it.

Second, some questions for you all:
Are you networking within and outside of your teams?
Are you critically analyzing (AKA: studying) what makes a great team and vice versa?
Do you have a working strategy on 1 and an evolving conclusion on 2?If you're good on these three, relax. Changes in competition structure aren't going to do squat against your bulletproof strategy that works not only in FIRST but also life overall.

We have the internet, so if there are now a couple of Championship events, study the best of the best at your assigned event, and compare with the others you can find online. Thought experiments are fun and a great exercise. It may not compare too terribly to actually being there, but it's certainly better than expending $$$ and limited resources that doing so would require.

Now, given most of you are going to/will be going to university or college (I went to community college before university FWIW), let me rewrite that 3 part strategy in the form of questions:
Are you networking within and outside of your College/University, ensuring your network is a diverse set? Scholarships and interships/post-graduation work are hard to get, but your chances will increase greatly if you do this.
Are you studying hard, and focusing on what makes a response/answer to things/questions of academic/scientific merit valid (not necessarily 'correct', though it is a goal to aim for)?
Do you have a working strategy on 1 and an evolving conclusion on 2?I believe if you ask yourself these 3 things, as simplistic of a model as it is, you're not going to be in bad shape. Study hard and smart, treat it like you would any job (some of you probably have a word about this, but I'm making a good faith assumption here), and be sure to have some fun in college/university, it helps.

Additionally, forms of these three questions are good to continually ask yourself in the workforce, which given I've been in it for 3 years now, I can safely say is quite a frenzy. No real 'winners' out here, just the occasional flash of success which we celebrate after work every time they occur.

Which leads me to my final point:

TL;DR - The commentary here in this thread is great, but our prince/princess is in another castle, or more directly our championship event(s) is(are) on a different field.

My gut feeling is that this will be a more sustainable strategy going forward, given the way competition structures and necessary logistics have evolved over the time I've known FIRST.

That's about it from me. Good luck out there!

[Abhishek R]

So I've been thinking about ways to potentially make the proposed system work. The one that makes the most sense in my mind goes like this:

1. Hold the two Championships and go about the things that Championships do (except maybe changing the name to something like Super Regional).
2. Each Championship will have FOUR divisions.
3. Each division finalist will be invited to a Grand Championships to crown a true Champion. Thus EIGHT alliances from each "Super Regional" (SR) and a total of 64 teams invited.
4. The division winners will advance to Einstein at each SR to determine a Champion of the event.
5. Each of the 16 alliances advancing to the Grand Championships will play 15 matches (One against every other competing alliance) to determine seeding for the Final Tournament. The winners of the two SR will be awarded the top 2 seeds and number 1 will be determined by the 15 matches.
6. Conduct the Tournament as normally run to determine a true Champion.

I believe this could work, but I think it would work best in an EAST/WEST system where the Grand Championships would be held somewhere in the Midwest.

Unfortunately, any idea that requires another event between the two championships (to suppose, determine a single winning alliance) is tough to do. Someone has to pay for the travel, lodging, meals, etc, and if it's the teams, that's not good, some may even decline to go due to costs, then what do you do? Call the whole thing off? Bring in a substitute team?

Not to mention, as it stands, the Detroit Championships will be the weekend before AP exams, which really sucks for all those students getting home on Sunday morning, all exhausted. The finals event would have to be way later, or else they can cause students to miss the exams, among other scheduling conflicts involving missing school in general and for mentors, missing work.

[the_godfaubel]

Unfortunately, any idea that requires another event between the two championships (to suppose, determine a single winning alliance) is tough to do. Someone has to pay for the travel, lodging, meals, etc, and if it's the teams, that's not good, some may even decline to go due to costs, then what do you do? Call the whole thing off? Bring in a substitute team?

Not to mention, as it stands, the Detroit Championships will be the weekend before AP exams, which really sucks for all those students getting home on Sunday morning, all exhausted. The finals event would have to be way later, or else they can cause students to miss the exams, among other scheduling conflicts involving missing school in general and for mentors, missing work.

Ah, I forgot to include that FIRST should pay the travel expenses for all teams attending. Another thing, since they want many teams to attend Championships, they could reduce the cost of going to the first Championship from $5000 to $2500 or even be free since the teams that are going to Championships earned their way there and since FIRST is, of course, a non-profit entity. Depending on team size, that money could be used to feed the students.

As for the AP exam conflict, I believe that this Grand Championship would have to be held during the middle of May, or maybe even June to avoid graduation conflicts. Each Super Regional also should be held on the same weekend.

[Connor Mulkey]

Connor,

Emphasis mine and really? Who are we talking about? The people who are FIRST employees who deal with the administrative logistics of FIRST or the volunteers in terms of coaches/mentors/field volunteers? Please explain. I only ask because somewhere else in this thread one poster got irritated with another because they felt like they were being told to just 'sit down and accept this...' Are you really saying that anyone who happens to be reserving judgment or may even like this idea should quit FIRST?

You're right. I was terribly unclear as to what specific idea I was referencing; a clear, well-worded post was difficult to produce out of the anger and disappointment of the moment. I'm not backing down from what I originally said, so I won't delete my original post. Consider this one though to be my level-headed post that I hope will clarify my intentions for the original. I was referring to those employees willing to sacrifice one of the greatest things about this program with no warning and no input from the community whatsoever. The trust and transparency being developed with the community up until this point was completely betrayed by this surprise decision, and that's an unacceptable way of managing this program.

A drastic change such as this should have been proposed to the FRC community, whose responses to such a proposal should have been used to shape an ideal path forward to accommodate the growth of the program. Even if their current plan is to eventually arrive at a super regional model that sends teams to a single championship, there has to be a better solution than splitting championship as the intermediary stage between now and then. World championship isn't just the event where we compete to determine the FRC champion for the year. It's the experience of getting to meet and interact with all of the greatest teams from around the world. It's about the friendships and camaraderie developed between these teams that transcend state and national boundaries.

The championship is as special as it is because all of these teams have the opportunity to gather in one place to compete with and learn from one another. I'm not interested in a format where only the two winning alliances of the two championships get to meet teams from the other region. I want the FRC season to culminate in one single world championship event, a finale that this program deserves. All of the other high school sports may end at the state level, but FRC is not like all of those other sports. It's better, so we should have a competition structure that reflects that fact. The students involved in those other sports don't get to meet other students from all over the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, China, etc. That is an experience that you can't get with any of those other programs, and I don't understand how we could even consider taking that chance away from everyone.

With this two championships model, it's true that more teams than ever before will be able to meet a select few teams from around the world in a championship environment. But you have to ask yourself, is that really worth dividing this community into two halves that will have almost nothing to do with each other? It's time for people to realize that not every team will be able to compete at a world championship. We may like to be inclusive, but that's simply not realistic. Hopefully someday we will have these super regionals right before a championship that provide the "championship experience" to teams that would otherwise never get the chance, but until then most teams will be left out because most teams aren't of the skill level that a world championship should be at.

Don't get me wrong. Just because I believe champs should be at a high skill level, doesn't mean I'm against rookie all stars, waitlist teams, and Chairman's teams attending world championship out of fear that some of them could "dilute" the competition. I'm not against teams that may not have earned their way there with their robot. I AM against the way they plan to diminish the championship experience in order to "provide inspiration" to an increasingly large number of teams at the expense of those currently earning their way into the championship. There are other methods of inspiration.

tl;dr The world championship is sacred, and should not be touched. Don't ruin the best event of the season.

[MikLast]

or maybe even June to avoid graduation conflicts.

Some schools get out in june, maybe not a ton, but there are a good few.

[Kevin Sevcik]

You're right. I was terribly unclear as to what specific idea I was referencing; a clear, well-worded post was difficult to produce out of the anger and disappointment of the moment. I'm not backing down from what I originally said, so I won't delete my original post. Consider this one though to be my level-headed post that I hope will clarify my intentions for the original. I was referring to those employees willing to sacrifice one of the greatest things about this program with no warning and no input from the community whatsoever. The trust and transparency being developed with the community up until this point was completely betrayed by this surprise decision, and that's an unacceptable way of managing this program.

A drastic change such as this should have been proposed to the FRC community, whose responses to such a proposal should have been used to shape an ideal path forward to accommodate the growth of the program. Even if their current plan is to eventually arrive at a super regional model that sends teams to a single championship, there has to be a better solution than splitting championship as the intermediary stage between now and then. World championship isn't just the event where we compete to determine the FRC champion for the year. It's the experience of getting to meet and interact with all of the greatest teams from around the world. It's about the friendships and camaraderie developed between these teams that transcend state and national boundaries.

The championship is as special as it is because all of these teams have the opportunity to gather in one place to compete with and learn from one another. I'm not interested in a format where only the two winning alliances of the two championships get to meet teams from the other region. I want the FRC season to culminate in one single world championship event, a finale that this program deserves. All of the other high school sports may end at the state level, but FRC is not like all of those other sports. It's better, so we should have a competition structure that reflects that fact. The students involved in those other sports don't get to meet other students from all over the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, China, etc. That is an experience that you can't get with any of those other programs, and I don't understand how we could even consider taking that chance away from everyone.

With this two championships model, it's true that more teams than ever before will be able to meet a select few teams from around the world in a championship environment. But you have to ask yourself, is that really worth dividing this community into two halves that will have almost nothing to do with each other? It's time for people to realize that not every team will be able to compete at a world championship. We may like to be inclusive, but that's simply not realistic. Hopefully someday we will have these super regionals right before a championship that provide the "championship experience" to teams that would otherwise never get the chance, but until then most teams will be left out because most teams aren't of the skill level that a world championship should be at.

Don't get me wrong. Just because I believe champs should be at a high skill level, doesn't mean I'm against rookie all stars, waitlist teams, and Chairman's teams attending world championship out of fear that some of them could "dilute" the competition. I'm not against teams that may not have earned their way there with their robot. I AM against the way they plan to diminish the championship experience in order to "provide inspiration" to an increasingly large number of teams at the expense of those currently earning their way into the championship. There are other methods of inspiration.

tl;dr The world championship is sacred, and should not be touched. Don't ruin the best event of the season.I think the comments from others about the FLL competition structure are pretty enlightening. In FLL, pretty much no-one goes to champs, and for the VAST majority of teams, you only see people in your region.

That's pretty much a preview of the future of FRC. The program is going to keep growing, barring a complete collapse of the economy. Champs as currently constituted is pretty much as big as it can get. Eventually, a monolithic Champs won't be able to handle even just the teams that qualify at DCMPs and Regionals. Heck, the 56 regionals this year can qualify up to 336 teams for Champs. It's no surprise they had to bump the capacity. Eventually, FRC would have to slap another qualifying layer in there of super regionals and drastically limit the teams that make it to Champs. And then, for the vast majority of teams, you're only ever seeing people from your region and you're not competing against the best of the best. It really just seems to me like this is mostly just a surprise implementation of Super Regionals. I'm sorry the future has gotten here more suddenly than we all expected, but it did have to happen at some point.

[BrennanB]

I think the comments from others about the FLL competition structure are pretty enlightening. In FLL, pretty much no-one goes to champs, and for the VAST majority of teams, you only see people in your region.

That's pretty much a preview of the future of FRC. The program is going to keep growing, barring a complete collapse of the economy. Champs as currently constituted is pretty much as big as it can get. Eventually, a monolithic Champs won't be able to handle even just the teams that qualify at DCMPs and Regionals. Heck, the 56 regionals this year can qualify up to 336 teams for Champs. It's no surprise they had to bump the capacity. Eventually, FRC would have to slap another qualifying layer in there of super regionals and drastically limit the teams that make it to Champs. And then, for the vast majority of teams, you're only ever seeing people from your region and you're not competing against the best of the best. It really just seems to me like this is mostly just a surprise implementation of Super Regionals. I'm sorry the future has gotten here more suddenly than we all expected, but it did have to happen at some point.

The comments about FLL were actually intended to prove that there is no good reason we need to expand champs. FLL is doing wonders, could be better, but they are doing fine with a ridiculously small qualification %age. This doesn't need to be the future, and by no means is it inevitable.

The solution is to expand and hype up district champs, and leave world champs alone. Since they have contracts, we move FLL/FTC to one, and FRC to the other, which really sucks, but it's the lesser of all the evils. If they absolutely need to have two FRC events, in an ideal world all the divs come together and have an Einstein "regional" ? You have divisional WFA and CA award winners who compete there as well? I don't like the idea of having two WCA teams, not because teams aren't deserving, but that it cheapens the award win for past teams to some extent.

[Tristan Lall]

The contracts have already been signed. If FIRST wanted to hear feedback, it would have been more helpful to have asked before the final decision was made.
I think with the venues already booked, they are locked in.
Since they have contracts, we move FLL/FTC to one, and FRC to the other, which really sucks, but it's the lesser of all the evils.
It would be a foolish contract indeed, that failed to spell out ways for the parties to terminate it early.

At this stage—years in advance—it might be as simple as forfeiting a down payment. So it might be worthwhile to consider what price you'd put on some other championship arrangement. Would the world be a better place if FIRST forfeited (for example) $50 000 to a venue operator, and arranged the event(s) to your liking?

(And even if it was a foolish contract with no way out, there's always the implicit option to negotiate for an amendment.)

[AmoryG]

I get how this might benefit teams that don't often get the chance to attend the World Championship event, but how are spectators and potential future participants going to feel about this? By making these events more inclusive we're also diluting the competition, and I can't think of a bigger turnoff for spectators who expect to see the highest level of play. People are inspired by the best teams and the best players. The biggest stages draw the biggest crowds because it is the most exciting. Kids want to become sports players and achieve big things because they watched guys like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Rodger Federer, and Michael Phelps. Making a single championship event where only the best of the best compete is in FIRST's best interests because it will draw the biggest crowds and will convert the most spectators into fans and participants.

I get why they're doing this, but it's completely misguided in my opinion. Almost no one gets to be the best, but that has never stopped any kid from trying.

[dodar]

Man, FIRST is out in full force trying to win over Michigan to go with this bad idea.

[Travis Hoffman]

Man, FIRST is out in full force trying to win over Michigan to go with this bad idea.

For those not watching the webcast, care to elaborate?

[dodar]

For those not watching the webcast, care to elaborate?

They've got Dean and Dan Bossi there from FIRST and the Governor hyping up one of the championships being in Detroit.

*I've gotta say, it feels super weird to say, "one of the championships."*

[Travis Hoffman]

They've got Dean and Dan Bossi there from FIRST and the Governor hyping up one of the championships being in Detroit.

*I've gotta say, it feels super weird to say, "one of the championships."*

The eventual dual "Championships" being hosted in states with significant state government influence in FIRST affairs is certainly interesting.

[Steven Smith]

The eventual dual "Championships" being hosted in states with significant state government influence in FIRST affairs is certainly interesting.

I'd wonder if it were the other way around? I might not have read your comment correctly, but it seems to suggest that Texas/Michigan governments are exerting undue influence over FIRST's decisions.

FIRST has successfully made ground with both state governments (Michigan more so than Texas... but growing in Texas), and perhaps they are able to secure additional state funding or preferential contracts on the the event locations. With the inability to satisfy the FIRST growth model in St. Louis*, the loss of leverage on pricing that occurs when you have an incumbent location, and the discussions around the future of the Rams... I could see a situation where financially and logistically, the move makes sense.

* - This isn't saying I agree with the model (or don't), just that the model FIRST is putting out shows growth to the 800+ FRC team mark attending championships in the next 2-3 years.

[Travis Hoffman]

I'd wonder if it were the other way around? I might not have read your comment correctly, but it seems to suggest that Texas/Michigan governments are exerting undue influence over FIRST's decisions.



There is no "correct" way to read my comment, as I merely noted a parallel between physical championship locations and strong governmental support of FIRST within those states.

I draw no further conclusions from this reality.

[Steven Smith]

There is no "correct" way to read my comment, as I merely noted a parallel between physical championship locations and strong governmental support of FIRST within those states.

I draw no further conclusions from this reality.

In that case... neither do I :) And I also note the parallel, and I don't think it is over-reaching to say that that strong government support could have been an influencing factor in FIRST decision, and strong government support might have led to secondary benefits for FIRST in their location selections.

[mburd]

So I mentioned to a rookie parent that they were splitting champs to Houston and Detroit. He's not from this country and the first thing out of his mouth was "Why wouldn't they do east coast/west coast?"

Really, Houston and Detroit? Last I looked, the US is longer than it is tall. Pretty simple geometry proof can be inferred here.

My guess is that the two cities have been trying to get the championship for a while and figured they had a good chance being centrally located. More eastern and western cities didn't think they had a chance because of their location. When FIRST started brainstorming cities, Detroit and Houston came up because they had probably already made a decent offer assuming that they had a good chance of getting it. Meanwhile cities in the east and west didn't know it would be split, so they didn't bother trying to bring it to them.

[Munchskull]

They've got Dean and Dan Bossi there from FIRST and the Governor hyping up one of the championships being in Detroit.

*I've gotta say, it feels super weird to say, "one of the championships."*

Where is the Webcast?

[Knufire]

Where is the Webcast?

http://www.dptv.org/programs/first-robotics/

[Qbot2640]

The comments about FLL were actually intended to prove that there is no good reason we need to expand champs. FLL is doing wonders, could be better, but they are doing fine with a ridiculously small qualification %age. This doesn't need to be the future, and by no means is it inevitable.

The solution is to expand and hype up district champs, and leave world champs alone. Since they have contracts, we move FLL/FTC to one, and FRC to the other, which really sucks, but it's the lesser of all the evils. If they absolutely need to have two FRC events, in an ideal world all the divs come together and have an Einstein "regional" ? You have divisional WFA and CA award winners who compete there as well? I don't like the idea of having two WCA teams, not because teams aren't deserving, but that it cheapens the award win for past teams to some extent.

Amen...and double-amen.
I am getting tired of hearing how this was inevitable. Championship does not have to become larger. Championship is special (in part) because it is difficult to attain. If growth is making it so too many teams are qualifying, then raise the standards. This change is huge - much bigger, in my opinion, than mandating districts. That is where the focus should be...and if there are still too many teams, then reduce the number each of those districts send.

District Events -> District Championship -> Single FRC Championship...and for the remaining cases where districts are not viable Regional -> Regional Championships -> Single FRC Championship.

[Lil' Lavery]

They've got Dean and Dan Bossi there from FIRST and the Governor hyping up one of the championships being in Detroit.

*I've gotta say, it feels super weird to say, "one of the championships."*

Having a Championship in Detroit is the thing that makes the most sense out of all of this. Michigan has 347 teams already. Ontario has 175. Ohio has 75. Indiana has 61. That's a very sizable portion of FIRST within a few hour drive. With or without the explosion of teams in Michigan in the last couple years progressing into future years, the Great Lakes region is already incredibly dense for FRC.

[alopex_rex]

A few thoughts on this:

My team last went to Championships in 2012, my first year, and I can tell you guys: yes, it is an experience, and an amazing one at that. FIRST recognizes that, and I think teams like mine do as well. I'm inclined to think that those who object strongly to having two championships are associated with teams that are invited very frequently if not routinely, and don't appreciate how much it means to teams for whom attending the championship is an incredible achievement. I honestly don't understand why so many people are angry at letting more teams go, especially since the number of teams in the world has increased so much. If they stick to one championship, the percentage of teams that attends will get less and less every year, meaning every team that isn't a consistent powerhouse will have less and less hope of attending.

Our team of course is excited about the Detroit Championships, since Detroit is about an hour away from where we work. But given the massively disproportionate size of FiM, it makes a lot of sense. It would be interesting to see a map of North America where the sizes of states/provinces were proportional to the number of FRC teams they contained; I suspect it would make the choice of Houston and Detroit seem very reasonable.

It's a bit weird to think about having two world champion alliances, but think: right now there isn't a single world champion. There's three. In a couple years there will be six. Perhaps that could be considered diluting the honor, but as a member of a team that is happy just to attend the championships, I'm not going to respect a champion team less for being one of a group of 0.2% of teams instead of 0.1%.

I was excited when I heard the news at MSC this weekend, and honestly I was surprised to see such a backlash. I also don't expect it to have any effect; any organization that reversed massive decisions because of some angry responses online wouldn't have survived nearly as long as FIRST has.

[Kevin Leonard]

A few thoughts on this:
I honestly don't understand why so many people are angry at letting more teams go, especially since the number of teams in the world has increased so much.

I don't think people are unhappy that FIRST is "letting more teams go". I think most of us would love an 800 team championship event.
But can you really call it a championship event if it's splitting FRC in half?
Now the Detroit Event will be the championships of the North, and the Houston Event will be the championships of the south. I won't be able to see 254 or 148 or 118 or 971 or 1678 or 233 or any of the teams at the other championship ever again.
Most of what makes Championships inspiring is being able to see teams from all over the world you can't see otherwise.

Instead of taking away what makes championships what it is, make DCMP's and regionals more inspiring. MSC is an incredible event because it has all the best teams from all over Michigan and awesome production values.
NECMP is exciting because it has the best of New England concentrated at one place, but it could use the production value of MSC.

Work on getting everyone to districts and making their district championships awesome. Worlds is what it is because of the teams that get to go there. Worlds should be a goal to achieve, not a giveaway.

[Racer26]

Having a Championship in Detroit is the thing that makes the most sense out of all of this. Michigan has 347 teams already. Ontario has 175. Ohio has 75. Indiana has 61. That's a very sizable portion of FIRST within a few hour drive. With or without the explosion of teams in Michigan in the last couple years progressing into future years, the Great Lakes region is already incredibly dense for FRC.

Additionally, Ontario is expecting to move to districts in the next 1-2 years, and will undoubtedly result in further growth here.

I'm excited for FIRST Championship Detroit to be within a 5-6 hours drive for me. I'm VERY not excited that it will only be half of the championship.

For the Toronto-region teams (which is the overwhelming majority of ON teams), MI/OH/IN and to a lesser extent PA/Western NY teams, a Detroit Championship DOES have real cost savings.

It should be downright terrifying to HQ that this announcement had many long term, well respected mentors from HOF teams ready to jump ship to another program at the drop of a hat, even if it meant building a new program themselves. It took only a couple pages into this thread for someone to suggest that its time for a vex pro competition to finally offer an alternative competition to FRC in a similar style.

Its easy to say (correctly) that a championshplit will enable more teams to get there and by extension get (most of) the inspiration that going to championship gives. HOWEVER, that's only true if it doesn't come at the expense of disillusioning the elites. They're the ones who MAKE that championship level so inspiring. If they jump ship because they want to actually compete to be the best in the world, then the inspiration evaporates in a really big hurry.

Most of those super-elite teams (the 1114s, 254s, 118s and 148s of FRC) build their season with the goal of WINNING THE CHAMPIONSHIP. Its the goal that drives them to the level of excellence they achieve, and its that excellence that makes them so inspiring to the other teams they play with. By splitting the championship, you cheapen that goal and make it less attractive for them to achieve, and their performance may suffer, and ultimately make them less inspiring.

Improving the DCMP/Super-Regional level of play to be more inspiring is the better way to reach greater numbers of teams -- even if it means a smaller grand championship with only the winners and finalists of the DCMP/SR level.

[waialua359]

Instead of taking away what makes championships what it is, make DCMP's and regionals more inspiring. MSC is an incredible event because it has all the best teams from all over Michigan and awesome production values.
NECMP is exciting because it has the best of New England concentrated at one place, but it could use the production value of MSC.

Work on getting everyone to districts and making their district championships awesome. Worlds is what it is because of the teams that get to go there. Worlds should be a goal to achieve, not a giveaway.
Going from a 400 team format to 800 teams brings in 2,000,000 more money in registration fees alone. Every extra team that "earns" a spot to Champs via wait list or wildcard, means more $$$ for FIRST.
I can see HQ not wanting 1 venue's constraints getting in the way of that if true.
Even if we all could make the DCMPs and regionals more inspiring, that won't be the trade off to limiting Champs.
As much as I personally agree with what you are saying about keeping Champs a much harder, more prestigious event to get into, the growth of FIRST and other factors have led to this already made decision.
Like you I am disappointed that as currently planned, we won't get to see 1/2 of the teams that we all looked forward to seeing in years past.

[waialua359]

Most of those super-elite teams (the 1114s, 254s, 118s and 148s of FRC) build their season with the goal of WINNING THE CHAMPIONSHIP. Its the goal that drives them to the level of excellence they achieve, and its that excellence that makes them so inspiring to the other teams they play with. By splitting the championship, you cheapen that goal and make it less attractive for them to achieve, and their performance may suffer, and ultimately make them less

I just imagined right now, how different this season would have been had these and other elite teams did not compete this season or years past.
The intangible inspiration provided by these teams can't be measured in dollars and cents, vs everythjng else we have to deal with in terms of affording to participate.

[Carolyn_Grace]

....

It should be downright terrifying to HQ that this announcement had many long term, well respected mentors from HOF teams ready to jump ship to another program at the drop of a hat, even if it meant building a new program themselves.

People keep pointing to this, but WHO are these mentors? Yes, I see a lot of talk here, a lot of people upset, but I see ALSO a lack of comment from many more well-respected mentors and members from HOF teams.

I keep seeing people pointing out how upset SO many people are, but there's just as many, if not more, people who are NOT commenting and instead are waiting for more information.

It's important that people make their opinions known if it makes themselves feel better, but it's just as important to NOT exaggerate or make it seem like ALL OF FIRST is upset about this.

Not that I'm a HOF mentor, or WFFAA, or even "well-respected" by many, but I'm not worried about this development at all. Having gone through the transition to districts TWICE (once in Michigan and now once in Indiana), what I see more than anything is that once change happens, FRC teams are adaptable, despite analyzing and agonizing about it when it first is announced.

[Racer26]

People keep pointing to this, but WHO are these mentors? Yes, I see a lot of talk here, a lot of people upset, but I see ALSO a lack of comment from many more well-respected mentors and members from HOF teams.

I keep seeing people pointing out how upset SO many people are, but there's just as many, if not more, people who are NOT commenting and instead are waiting for more information.

It's important that people make their opinions known if it makes themselves feel better, but it's just as important to NOT exaggerate or make it seem like ALL OF FIRST is upset about this.

Not that I'm a HOF mentor, or WFFAA, or even "well-respected" by many, but I'm not worried about this development at all. Having gone through the transition to districts TWICE (once in Michigan and now once in Indiana), what I see more than anything is that once change happens, FRC teams are adaptable, despite analyzing and agonizing about it when it first is announced.

I was referring to Jared and Cory of 254 specifically, whose posts can be read earlier in this thread, as well as the others that have been implied through reading this thread.

While I'm quite certain that some degree of their posts was simply them being inflammatory to get a reaction, a change that has any HOF mentors even questioning their involvement and whether FIRST's goals continue to align with their own needs a serious looking at.

Yes, the HOF/Otherwise Super-elites are a minority, and so its easy to say that this change really only upsets a minority of teams that want to compete at the highest level. They account for less than 100 of the ~3000 teams in FIRST. However, they disproportionately account for a large portion of the inspiration. Without them, I think the program ultimately would not survive, and so decisions which cause them to question their involvement are scary indeed. Those teams mentor other teams and make the FIRST program better. Consequently, I believe that those teams should be involved in decisions like this, and their input heavily considered.

To use my own region as an example? 1114 is directly responsible for 50+ VRC teams, several FLL teams, as well as the creation or growth of several premier FRC teams, 1503,1680,2056,2166,3683,4039,4476 and more I can't think of right now can all credit 1114 with some part of their existence or competitiveness.

[Carolyn_Grace]

I was referring to Jared and Cory of 254 specifically, whose posts can be read earlier in this thread, as well as the others that have been implied through reading this thread.

My point is that 2, or even 3-4, HOF mentors do not speak for MANY or all of them, much less a high percentage of inspirational people in FIRST. Please beware of hyperbole. It creates false alarm and a hive mentality, something that ChiefDelphi usually already has an abundance of.

[JaneYoung]

In a program designed to change the culture, create exciting new innovations, and challenge status quo standards of thinking and leadership, change is a good thing - not a threat to everything held dear. Granted, change is hard but, it does create opportunities for identifying strengths and weaknesses within the structures and frameworks involved.

My firm belief has always been that there is more room for achieving excellence and for more recognition of excellence achieved. As it is, we are setting limits when there is opportunity to lift them, raising the bar and strengthening the challenge. FIRSTers never shy away from agonizing analysis (love it, Carolyn Grace), discomfort, new ways of growing the programs, and having fun. Never. This is 2015. What new challenges will we be facing in 2020, I wonder.

As an opinion, I also think the way this announcement came about, and the timing of it, has been a strategic part of HQ's plan for rolling this change out. Strategic is the key word. It gives everyone ample time to work through the stages of acceptance/rejection in time for productive discussions in STL across all of the programs impacted.

Jane

[Racer26]

My point is that 2, or even 3-4, HOF mentors do not speak for MANY or all of them, much less a high percentage of inspirational people in FIRST. Please beware of hyperbole. It creates false alarm and a hive mentality, something that ChiefDelphi usually already has an abundance of.

I like how you use accusing me of hyperbole to conveniently skirt the very next thing I say, where I suggest that this announcement making ANY mentors of that caliber question their involvement is scary.

I agree with you that one or two mentors does not a widespread opinion make.

Further, I agree that they are far from a high percentage of the inspirational people in FIRST.

Certainly, there are inspirational people at every step of the FIRST programs, however, the super-elite teams, and the mentors that make them tick (people like Jared and Cory), account for a disproportionate share of the inspiration, both directly through their own personal actions, and indirectly through the actions of their teams and the teams that they mentor, and therefore their opinions should be considered to have more weight when it comes to future ways the program will inspire. If they're not fully on-board, its a potentially massive problem that can jeopardize the very thing that getting more teams to CMP tries to achieve.

[Carolyn_Grace]

I like how you use accusing me of hyperbole to conveniently skirt the very next thing I say, where I suggest that this announcement making ANY mentors of that caliber question their involvement is scary.

I agree with you that one or two mentors does not a widespread opinion make.

Further, I agree that they are far from a high percentage of the inspirational people in FIRST.

Certainly, there are inspirational people at every step of the FIRST programs, however, the super-elite teams, and the mentors that make them tick (people like Jared and Cory), account for a disproportionate share of the inspiration, both directly through their own personal actions, and indirectly through the actions of their teams and the teams that they mentor, and therefore their opinions should be considered to have more weight when it comes to future ways the program will inspire. If they're not fully on-board, its a potentially massive problem that can jeopardize the very thing that getting more teams to CMP tries to achieve.

I didn't ignore it. My apologies for making you feel like I did. I was pointing out the hyperbole in your original post of many long term, well respected mentors from HOF teams ready to jump ship to another program at the drop of a hat You, yourself, said that you were referring to two people in this thread, "as well as others." Two people, plus some others, does not equal "many" people. That was the hyperbole.

I agree that WFA/WFAA and mentors from HOF teams should have their opinions treated with respect and with an air of authority, to a reason. But I've been around FIRST long enough (13+ years), and know enough of them personally, to understand that their opinions rarely line up together.

Not all of them have publicly given their opinions on this subject. Some I've talked to in person and though personal chats. Others, who I personally don't know, haven't publicly expressed their opinion.

[themccannman]

My point is that 2, or even 3-4, HOF mentors do not speak for MANY or all of them, much less a high percentage of inspirational people in FIRST. Please beware of hyperbole. It creates false alarm and a hive mentality, something that ChiefDelphi usually already has an abundance of.

Because most of them (dare I say none of them) jump to hasty conclusions. It will likely take them the entirety of the next 2 years to decide whether or not they want to stay with FRC with the recent changes, but the fact that many of them are even considering it is a huge failure for FIRST. If FIRST wants to really have a successful program they shouldn't have all of the largest contributors to their program have half a foot out the door, they should be thrilled to be involved without having so much doubt in FIRST HQ's choices. Of course there will be controversial decisions made by FIRST, but they shouldn't be so controversial that large amounts of veteran mentors and teams are considering leaving over it.

A few thoughts on this:

My team last went to Championships in 2012, my first year, and I can tell you guys: yes, it is an experience, and an amazing one at that. FIRST recognizes that, and I think teams like mine do as well. I'm inclined to think that those who object strongly to having two championships are associated with teams that are invited very frequently if not routinely, and don't appreciate how much it means to teams for whom attending the championship is an incredible achievement. I honestly don't understand why so many people are angry at letting more teams go, especially since the number of teams in the world has increased so much. If they stick to one championship, the percentage of teams that attends will get less and less every year, meaning every team that isn't a consistent powerhouse will have less and less hope of attending.


Champs stops becoming meaningful when a third of all teams qualify for it. Why isn't your team just as excited to make regional finals as to make it to CMP? Those will soon become similarly exclusive events. If you claim it's because you get to see other successful teams, well, you won't see most of them anymore because they'll be competing halfway across the country. I'm curious if you happen to discuss finances with the business side of your team, because I'm having trouble seeing why you would be so thrilled to drop $10,000 to go to CMP instead of $1000 to go to district champs and see teams at the same level of competition as you would see in a division at CMP. Is watching einstein live (with only half as many of the teams you're there to see) worth another $9000 in expenses every year? If I were you I would much prefer to go to district champs, not to mention the fact that I would get to play 4x as many matches in the district system instead of at regionals for a lower price.


It's a bit weird to think about having two world champion alliances, but think: right now there isn't a single world champion. There's three. In a couple years there will be six. Perhaps that could be considered diluting the honor, but as a member of a team that is happy just to attend the championships, I'm not going to respect a champion team less for being one of a group of 0.2% of teams instead of 0.1%.

Personally, I don't care much, but here's the reasoning as I understand it, that most other people don't like it: The word champion loses a lot validity when you no longer crown a champion. Now that you have multiple champions can any of them really say "we are world champions"? Why stop at 2? Why not split the country into quarters and have 4 regional champions? Under your logic is that any less reputable, or garnering of respect than 2 champions?


I was excited when I heard the news at MSC this weekend, and honestly I was surprised to see such a backlash. I also don't expect it to have any effect; any organization that reversed massive decisions because of some angry responses online wouldn't have survived nearly as long as FIRST has.
The difference is that most of the people involved in FIRST aren't internet trolls. That's just my opinion though.

[grstex]

I'd like to make a really crazy suggestion here. What if, maybe, somehow, in some way, against all odds, this all works out for the better?

What if, maybe, increasing the percentage of teams going to champs is a GOOD thing?

What if, maybe, giving mid-tier teams, who aren't world famous, a chance to see and interact with elite teams, even if its just one, helps inspire them?

What if, maybe, those teams learn something from this interaction with even one elite team?

What if, maybe, those mid-tier teams act on this new knowledge and start to vastly improve?

What if, maybe, they become successful, and gain sponsors and support?

What if, maybe, they become the "new elites?"

And finally, what if, maybe, they become the new source of inspiration in FIRST?

Is such a thing even possible? Am I crazy for thinking that this WON'T "water down" championships? That the disparaging and disappointing remarks by some are short-sighted? That the "alarming" (trying to be polite) phone call (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1468539&postcount=302) to some low-level FIRST staffer just trying to help teams get to this year's championship was not necessary? Is it possible that this might actually help fulfill FIRST's mission (which, BTW, makes no mention (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision) of "robots" or "competition")?

[PayneTrain]

I'd like to make a really crazy suggestion here. What if, maybe, somehow, in some way, against all odds, this all works out for the better?

What if, maybe, increasing the percentage of teams going to champs is a GOOD thing?

What if, maybe, giving mid-tier teams, who aren't world famous, a chance to see and interact with elite teams, even if its just one, helps inspire them?

What if, maybe, those teams learn something from this interaction with even one elite team?

What if, maybe, those mid-tier teams act on this new knowledge and start to vastly improve?

What if, maybe, they become successful, and gain sponsors and support?

What if, maybe, they become the "new elites?"

And finally, what if, maybe, they become the new source of inspiration in FIRST?

Is such a thing even possible? Am I crazy for thinking that this WON'T "water down" championships? That the disparaging and disappointing remarks by some are short-sighted? That the "alarming" (trying to be polite) phone call (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1468539&postcount=302) to some low-level FIRST staffer just trying to help teams get to this year's championship was not necessary? Is it possible that this might actually help fulfill FIRST's mission (which, BTW, makes no mention (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision) of "robots" or "competition")?

It's possible that I wake up tomorrow and start shooting lightning from my hands and ride a unicorn to work. The idea that I think that would actually happen to me would probably cause a lot of people more experienced in biology and zoology who think otherwise to be very concerned for me and my mental faculties.

I'm not publicly advocating for holding one championships, two championships, or 422 championships, but there are people who have been in FIRST twice as long as I have that think this could not be a net benefit for teams.

[grstex]

It's possible that I wake up tomorrow and start shooting lightning from my hands and ride a unicorn to work. The idea that I think that would actually happen to me would probably cause a lot of people more experienced in biology and zoology who think otherwise to be very concerned for me and my mental faculties.

What can I say? You gotta dream big.:D

I'm not publicly advocating for holding one championships, two championships, or 422 championships, but there are people who have been in FIRST twice as long as I have that think this could not be a net benefit for teams.

Fair enough. For the record, I've been a part of FIRST since '99, when they first went to alliances. Our teacher and 3 veterans quit because it "watered down" the competition. I think things turned out fine. I don't know how this will turn out, just like anyone else. Just consider nothing has to be a failure until you make it so.

[AGPapa]

Fair enough. For the record, I've been a part of FIRST since '99, when they first went to alliances. Our teacher and 3 veterans quit because it "watered down" the competition.

I agree with you and don't understand why people are making those arguments. The greatest part of champs isn't purely the competition. As you said, things like alliances and divisions already bring down the level of play.

What makes champs great isn't the robots, it's the people. It's Karthik's presentation, it's talking to 254's students about their robot, it's a strategy discussion with Kyle Hughes, it's seeing old friends, it's meeting all of the passionate and dedicated students and mentors from all the teams you've seen on livestreams for the past few months.

And this decision will take that greatness and cut out it's heart. Champs brings everybody together, this will split it in two.

[Rypsnort]

My thoughts on this:

We can't do anything about it for the next few years so live with it for now.

For those of us who have gone to Champs we know how awesome and inspiring it is. If FIRST is going to live up to its name and inspire kids and the public about STEM then it needs to reach a lot of people. This makes it so the maximum number of people can go to these events. And with the size to which FIRST has grown it is hard to get a decent percentage of teams into one event. So FIRST's intentions were good in making this move.

Now I know this makes it so that the winners are not completely the champions of the world, but all that needs to be done is have IRI or some off-season event have those alliances come and play each other for the unofficial-official championship.

Lastly, when the time comes to restructure again there are many routes to chose from. IMHO moving to an all districts/state championship format would be the best. Seeing how successful the current districts and state championships are this would be a great option. Also this would be more like other sports with more levels of play (district event, district championship, Nationals). From what the webcast showed the MSC event is similar to Champs in the atmosphere created at the event, so instead of one you get two events with festivities of Champs if you are lucky enough to go to both.

Have a great day. :)

[grstex]

I agree with you and don't understand why people are making those arguments. The greatest part of champs isn't purely the competition. As you said, things like alliances and divisions already bring down the level of play.

What makes champs great isn't the robots, it's the people. It's Karthik's presentation, it's talking to 254's students about their robot, it's a strategy discussion with Kyle Hughes, it's seeing old friends, it's meeting all of the passionate and dedicated students and mentors from all the teams you've seen on livestreams for the past few months.

And this decision will take that greatness and cut out it's heart. Champs brings everybody together, this will split it in two.


Thanks Antonio. The people of FIRST (especially the students) are what have kept me involved all these years. I know that makes this difficult, but Einstein said "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." This is a chance for new friends to be made and new role models to rise up. I don't think that's too bad.

[Alex2614]

I'd like to make a really crazy suggestion here. What if, maybe, somehow, in some way, against all odds, this all works out for the better?

What if, maybe, increasing the percentage of teams going to champs is a GOOD thing?

What if, maybe, giving mid-tier teams, who aren't world famous, a chance to see and interact with elite teams, even if its just one, helps inspire them?

What if, maybe, those teams learn something from this interaction with even one elite team?

What if, maybe, those mid-tier teams act on this new knowledge and start to vastly improve?

What if, maybe, they become successful, and gain sponsors and support?

What if, maybe, they become the "new elites?"

And finally, what if, maybe, they become the new source of inspiration in FIRST?

Is such a thing even possible? Am I crazy for thinking that this WON'T "water down" championships? That the disparaging and disappointing remarks by some are short-sighted? That the "alarming" (trying to be polite) phone call (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1468539&postcount=302) to some low-level FIRST staffer just trying to help teams get to this year's championship was not necessary? Is it possible that this might actually help fulfill FIRST's mission (which, BTW, makes no mention (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision) of "robots" or "competition")?

After thinking about it for a while, and taking with some people (some of them highly respected people in FIRST), I'm starting to think that it won't be as bad as we think. As someone pointed out below, when FIRST moved to alliances, many thought that it "diluted" or "watered down" the competition. And it didn't. I remember these discussions about switching to districts. Many people thought it would be awful. And it wasn't. It happens every year with the game discussions, and for the most part, it usually turns out okay.

I do have problems with the locations and venues they chose for this, and I understand that it may be impossible to have a 800-team championship. This could have been handled much better, and better solutions could have been made. But as far as the discussions about not having a "real" winner and all the boos and hisses about this, I can't help but think: FIRST isn't about the robot, is it? It's not inspiring to have one winner. It's inspiring to see these other teams, even if through a webcast or a revea video. It's the EXPERIENCE of champs itself.

Who knows, maybe this is a hybrid between when they can get districts everywhere. Maybe after districts are everywhere they can reevaluate the one champ model, but maybe they will outgrow the championship for a few years, and this is their TEMPORARY solution. We don't know.

But there is nothing we can do about it now but offer suggestions to improve their decision. There is nothing we can do but wait it out and see what happens. We all go through acceptance processes. I was right there on the bandwagon, too. But I've seen this thread move from 100% negative to showing some positive voices through the cracks. In time, this may be the new norm, just like districts, alliances (even regionals were new at one point), and we will learn to deal.

[BrennanB]

What if, maybe, increasing the percentage of teams going to champs is a GOOD thing?

It is. Just not at the cost of splitting champs.

What if, maybe, giving mid-tier teams, who aren't world famous, a chance to see and interact with elite teams, even if its just one, helps inspire them?

It probably will. Just there is a higher chance of being inspired at a single championships.

What if, maybe, those teams learn something from this interaction with even one elite team?

They can, will, and have done this at regionals and District champs, nothing unique about champs other than more elites in one place which two championships doesn't do.

What if, maybe, those mid-tier teams act on this new knowledge and start to vastly improve?

They will, just probably to a lesser extent. Many teams have shown that this is the case, and have fantastic seasons.

What if, maybe, they become the "new elites?"

They will, they have before.

And finally, what if, maybe, they become the new source of inspiration in FIRST?

Every team is an inspiration in FIRST. They will just become a larger one.

The problem is NOT that:

- More teams are qualifying
- The venues are closer (to some teams)
- It dilutes quality of the event

The problem is:

- You are making an event where the entire world meets in one place non-existient or exclusive to semi-championship winners
- You making the best event in the world more meh.
- You split the community in half. Which is never a good thing
- You might devalue HOF teams by adding two a year.
- It removes some of the most inspirational teams from your event.

Good things are:

- Provides another avenue for average teams to be elite.
- Closer to some teams.

Everyone is focused on the wrong problems here. Nothing is worth splitting the community for. We simply can't do that. Having two championships isolates north from south.

[alopex_rex]

What makes champs great isn't the robots, it's the people. It's Karthik's presentation, it's talking to 254's students about their robot, it's a strategy discussion with Kyle Hughes, it's seeing old friends, it's meeting all of the passionate and dedicated students and mentors from all the teams you've seen on livestreams for the past few months.


Something to think about: I would guess at least 90% of FIRST participants don't know who Karthik and Kyle Hughes are, don't know anything about team 254, have no old friends in FRC outside of their area, and don't watch any livestreams. This is certainly true of everyone on my team, which includes many people who are very dedicated to FRC--that is, to building our robot and participating in our competitions. And it's true of the teams that will be able to go to championships now when they wouldn't have before, that is, the teams that this change is intended to help. After a visit to championships, even if it only covers half the country, a student might be inspired to start watching livestreams of events in other regions, or to look out for 254's robot. If they never go, they will probably only ever have a vague awareness of FRC teams out of their region.

Not to be impolite, but many people seem to think that because most people on an internet forum agree with them, their opinion is held unanimously by all FRC teams, and FIRST must reckon with it. It's important to keep in mind that this change is specifically targeted at teams whose voices are unlikely to be heard in this discussion.

[DarkRune]

And from a purely selfish standpoint, the Californian robots are all really cool and I'd be losing the chance to see them in real life.
Feel free to come out next year. I've heard the weather is nicer here ;)

[PayneTrain]

- You devalue HOF teams by adding two a year.


I'd like to see what HoF teams think about this move. HoF induction has gotten pretty cutthroat in the last 3-4 years and it's definitely not going to be any easier to pick one team over the other as years go on and more teams pile up more RCA/DCCA wins.

[EricH]

Who knows, maybe this is a hybrid between when they can get districts everywhere. Maybe after districts are everywhere they can reevaluate the one champ model, but maybe they will outgrow the championship for a few years, and this is their TEMPORARY solution. We don't know.

I'm actually thinking that this is more correct. My hunch is that these aren't going to replace the Championship for long, but eventually they'll replace the DCMPs in whole or in part and there will be a Championship again.

Think about it this way: How many district systems are currently in play? (5) How many areas are seriously thinking about going district? (I've heard of at least 2-3 more; other areas have grave concerns about some aspects of the idea and may take some "convincing".) How much of FRC do those district systems cover currently? (About 28%, so give-or-take a third) But it's taken 7 long years from the announcement and all the flack at that time to get to those 5 district systems covering a third of the competition. I'm guessing that in about 10 years, we'll see a Championship again, could be sooner if Districts take off all over the place. (And, I remember hearing a way long time back that FIRST did want those smaller events all over the place rather than the larger events. This is back when alliances were still a new idea, as I recall. Definitely before autonomous was a thing.)

[BrennanB]

I'd like to see what HoF teams think about this move. HoF induction has gotten pretty cutthroat in the last 3-4 years and it's definitely not going to be any easier to pick one team over the other as years go on and more teams pile up more RCA/DCCA wins.

Yeah, there are plenty of deserving teams out there. One could argue it's like an alliance winning championships, but then again, alliances you work closely together. And yeah I don't come from a HOF team, but as a non-HOFer that's just my gut feeling.

I'm actually thinking that this is more correct. My hunch is that these aren't going to replace the Championship for long, but eventually they'll replace the DCMPs in whole or in part and there will be a Championship again.


Well temporary good/bad isn't really acceptable either?

[EricH]

Well temporary good/bad isn't really acceptable either?
No, it's just easier to endure if you know that it's temporary. I think that's part of the problem: for all we know for sure, it's permanent. But we hope it's temporary.

[AGPapa]

Something to think about: I would guess at least 90% of FIRST participants don't know who Karthik and Kyle Hughes are, don't know anything about team 254, have no old friends in FRC outside of their area, and don't watch any livestreams. This is certainly true of everyone on my team, which includes many people who are very dedicated to FRC--that is, to building our robot and participating in our competitions. And it's true of the teams that will be able to go to championships now when they wouldn't have before, that is, the teams that this change is intended to help. After a visit to championships, even if it only covers half the country, a student might be inspired to start watching livestreams of events in other regions, or to look out for 254's robot. If they never go, they will probably only ever have a vague awareness of FRC teams out of their region.


You make some fair points. I was probably stretching it with Kyle Hughes, (we had a match with 27 last year at it was a lot of fun. She was a very impressive drive coach), but I wouldn't say that 90% of teams "don't know anything about team 254".

And if not for meeting all of these great people, how exactly are these teams getting inspired? Is it just the fancy lights and the arena? Is that all it takes to inspire someone to become an engineer? I think we can aim a little higher.

[Squillo]

I had this great idea and posted it in another thread and only one or two people have commented on it and I'm just dying to know what other folks think. Since this thread seems more active and I'm very impatient, I'm putting a link here in hopes of getting some feedback on my idea for improving the new "two championship" idea. So here it is (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1469887&postcount=64).

If there's even a tiny bit of interest in this I have a whole 'nother post (ready to post but I didn't want to seem too hyper, which I know I now am so what the heck) with my analysis of what it will cost FIRST (somewhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000) and why.

I mean we're a bunch of "engineers" (OK, I'm actually a lawyer, but I just engineer solutions with words instead of stuff or code), why aren't we all over the place with solutions for this? I thought the "preparing for the town hall" thread was the place to do that but it seems folks would rather hang here and spout opinions than actually propose a lot of ideas (there have been some). Well, I had one, what do you think of it?

[Alex2614]

I had this great idea and posted it in another thread and only one or two people have commented on it and I'm just dying to know what other folks think. Since this thread seems more active and I'm very impatient, I'm putting a link here in hopes of getting some feedback on my idea for improving the new "two championship" idea. So here it is (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1469887&postcount=64).

If there's even a tiny bit of interest in this I have a whole 'nother post (ready to post but I didn't want to seem too hyper, which I know I now am so what the heck) with my analysis of what it will cost FIRST (somewhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000) and why.

I mean we're a bunch of "engineers" (OK, I'm actually a lawyer, but I just engineer solutions with words instead of stuff or code), why aren't we all over the place with solutions for this? I thought the "preparing for the town hall" thread was the place to do that but it seems folks would rather hang here and spout opinions than actually propose a lot of ideas (there have been some). Well, I had one, what do you think of it?

I think it is a great idea. But I'd rather see the following (some teams have restrictions on how much school students can miss and other restrictions).

Assuming all districts (or mostly all districts). A world championship and a "US Open" (similar to what FLL does). Send some teams to one and some to the other based on certain criteria.

Maybe that is the winners on the field and Chairmans/ei/ra-s to one event, and all the other wild card/district points teams to the other.

Maybe it's just the alliance captains of the winning alliance and Chairmans/ei go to one and the rest go to another.

Or some other combination. Have one "real" world championship and have one more of a FIRST festival or "World Open" style.

Either that or put everyone in districts and go back to only inviting 6 teams from each district championship. But I'm liking that idea less the more I think about it.

I think FIRST has outgrown one venue. It is impossible to do an 800-team championship. But 400 teams just doesn't fit the size of FRC anymore. We have doubled in size since I joined 8 years ago. I think what I mentioned above is a reasonable solution. I've seen a number of people on here advocating for that.

[EricH]

I had this great idea and posted it in another thread and only one or two people have commented on it and I'm just dying to know what other folks think. Since this thread seems more active and I'm very impatient, I'm putting a link here in hopes of getting some feedback on my idea for improving the new "two championship" idea. So here it is (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1469887&postcount=64).

If there's even a tiny bit of interest in this I have a whole 'nother post (ready to post but I didn't want to seem too hyper, which I know I now am so what the heck) with my analysis of what it will cost FIRST (somewhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000) and why.

I mean we're a bunch of "engineers" (OK, I'm actually a lawyer, but I just engineer solutions with words instead of stuff or code), why aren't we all over the place with solutions for this? I thought the "preparing for the town hall" thread was the place to do that but it seems folks would rather hang here and spout opinions than actually propose a lot of ideas (there have been some). Well, I had one, what do you think of it?I think a lot of people just skimmed the post. I know I did, initially.

It sounded like something that's already been posted, about having the winning alliance from the earlier event attend the later event to compete against the winners from that event. That's probably why I skimmed it at first.


Here's the #1 problem with having teams attend both events. It's not funding (though that's nice to get some help with). It's "time off". For both mentors and students, doing an extra event means taking extra time off of work or school, which in some cases may not be possible. There are ways to work around this, yes--but they involve sending partial teams, both of students and of mentors.

As for all the regional winners...There are 56 regionals and 5 DCMPs this year, and expect those numbers to grow (until some folks start admitting that they have to go district). 61 events, and if I read you right, that's either 2 or 4 teams per event going to both. 122 to 244 teams attending both--that's easily a quarter of each event, and possibly over half. That's not a small number. Then you gotta transport robots and team members. Now you add in the HoF and Legacy teams (7 of the latter, and something like 20 of the former). You're talking a third of the event is the same, minimum. A THIRD. Maybe two-thirds.

I don't think that that's a viable option, honestly. You've got at least a couple more semis in the caravan with the fields there, you've got 1400+ extra round-trip flights to book, and you know that those teams aren't going to just want 12 people (HoF teams gotta man their displays), so they'll have to bring the rest of the team or as many as they can manage on their own funding which may or may not be adequate... On top of arranging for the time off of work and school.

Don't get me wrong, I like the general idea of having a group of teams attend both Championships, but I would suggest instead having it be the HoF teams (in force, with or without their robots), the Legacy teams (same condition), the winners of the earlier event, and the entirety of the Conference presenters. Maybe include some of the higher-ranking teams at the earlier event (let's just say the division winners and/or division finalists). Maybe let the FRC community have a vote on a certain number of robots to get a Wilder Card to go to both championships. It's a smaller group, but probably has a bigger impact.

[Squillo]

Thanks for the input! Here's my analysis:

As you say, there were 56 regionals this year, and 5 DCMPs. Assuming a few more districts are created, in a year or two there might be 8 DCMPS and maybe only 44 regionals? Is that reasonable (I don't know how many regionals typically disappear when a District is created, I'm assuming 4 but let me know if that's off). In a couple more years there might be 10 Districts and only 36 regionals? Maybe fewer?

So with no overlap, with two teams from each regional and DCMP qualifying for my "double champs ticket" that would be between 122 (61 events) and 92 (46 events) teams qualifying that way, plus the HoF and Legacy teams (you say 27, so we'll go with that). We could even leave out the HoF and Legacy teams (many of those will get a double ticket anyway by winning something).

However, it won't be that many, because some of the same teams will be winning or finalist captains at multiple regionals, and some of those are also HoF teams (e.g., this year, Team 359 would have gotten a "double ticket" 3 ways - captain of winning alliance in Hawaii and Australia, and HoF; but with the new arrangement, they might have elected to stay AC of the #2 alliance at IE, rather than accepting the invitation of the #1 captain, and gotten a ticket that way too if they ended up winner or finalist). With more districts, this multiple qualification will decrease some. Let's say that about 20% of the total slots would be filled by teams that already have a ticket. No wildcards here! (However, these teams may elect to skip a 2nd or 3rd regional if they know they can go to 2 champs instead, so duplication may decrease. This is hard to predict but someone looking at the winners this year could maybe make a better estimate.)

So that leaves about 95-120 teams that would get a "double ticket". Half of these (well, +/-) will be "Region A" teams that get to also go to the Region B Championship, and vice versa. So about 50-60 teams from each region that would otherwise go, will get "displaced" by a 'double-ticket' team. With 400-team regionals, that means 50-60 fewer waitlist teams, and each regional would have maybe 90-100 of these elite teams (depending on whether a larger or smaller number could afford to make the extra trip), and 300 "not-so-elite" teams. A pretty good balance for inspiration of ALL teams, I think - just as "inspiring" (if top-caliber teams are where you get your inspiration) as the 2014 400-team champs, no?

What would this cost FIRST? Well, they would lose the registration fee for the teams that got displaced by the double-ticket holders, so about 50 x $5000 for each competition, or a total of about $500,000 (but they could get it back by increasing the total size of each championship to 450). If FIRST gave each team $5,000 toward their travel and hotel costs, that's about $1,000,000 total, to create what I think would be a really awesome experience for ALL of the teams attending both events. The teams that have earned a Top Spot would get 2 championship experiences, with all (or most) of their top competition at both (or at least at one or the other), and the ability to inspire 600 other teams in total (300 at each event).

FIRST could get whatever they are getting out of having two championships (more teams able to go, less travel distance/cost for many); the cities would get what they have bargained for (maybe actually more); the top teams would have what it seems they are looking for (top competition, to be able to inspire and be inspired by ALL of the best, to see their opposite-region buddies, etc.); the other teams would not lose out on the inspiration provided by top teams in the 'other region' and more of them could go - yet they could still aspire to becoming a "double ticket" team themselves. And the championships couldn't really get too stacked one way or the other, since a "double ticket" (DT) team could not eschew their "own" championship to go to the other. (I guess there could be an agreement that all DT teams from Houston would go to Detroit, and no DT teams from Detroit would go to Houston, making Detroit into the stronger competition - or vice versa - but I wonder if that would/could actually happen? They could implement some kind of swap, where a team from Region A had to agree to go to Region B before one could actually go from B to A - and vice-versa - as has been proposed in the basic swap idea. But here there would also be MORE top teams at both, not just different ones.)

$1,000,000 seems a small price for FIRST to pay for this much awesomeness.

[EricH]

Is that reasonable (I don't know how many regionals typically disappear when a District is created, I'm assuming 4 but let me know if that's off). In a couple more years there might be 10 Districts and only 36 regionals? Maybe fewer?

That strongly depends on the region. If the Capital region (MD/VA, possibly WV if they're interested) goes district it's 2 regionals. Indiana replaced 2 regionals with 3 districts. On the other hand, if TX goes district, they lose 4 regionals; CA would lose SEVEN. MI lost 3 when it made the move. HI, Israel, and Australia would lose one apiece. 6 Districts created, 13 Regionals disappeared.

Yeah, I think you're off slightly. OTOH, long-term, 4 is more realistic. (If MI was just now switching, I'd really hate to think how many events they'd have.)


There's something you're missing in the cost, BTW. I hinted at it already, but somehow the robots have to make the trek between the Championships for the double teams. 100-120 robots have to go between the two (you know, because there are 100-120 double-ticket teams). In crates. Shipping and drayage costs will need to be donated or otherwise paid for. (Did you know? At one time, every robot had to be shipped to every event--and FedEx donated the shipping. Now the FedEx donation no longer covers that, so it's just to Champs, maybe one or two special cases.) That's probably 2-3 semis for those robot crates. Think about that--that's not exactly cheap.

[Squillo]

Oh, yeah, I thought of shipping the robots, then forgot about it again. (And yes, I do remember when they shifted to "bag & tag" - that was when we started having to get shipping exemptions every year, and I'm the one who handles that! And this year, since we went to two regionals, we had to pay to ship our 'bot home from Oahu, even with the 2-free-legs covered by the exemption.)

What DOES it cost to ship a robot crate overland in the U.S.? (I figure ours is more expensive because it has to fly.) You're right, that is something that I would think FIRST would have to cover.

I was thinking more like about 80-90 double-ticket teams; they could make it a lottery from among those who qualify and want to go (if enough want to go). Then the next year any qualifying team that didn't go the prior year would get preference, and so on.

[waialua359]

Thanks for the input! Here's my analysis:

As you say, there were 56 regionals this year, and 5 DCMPs. Assuming a few more districts are created, in a year or two there might be 8 DCMPS and maybe only 44 regionals? Is that reasonable (I don't know how many regionals typically disappear when a District is created, I'm assuming 4 but let me know if that's off). In a couple more years there might be 10 Districts and only 36 regionals? Maybe fewer?

So with no overlap, with two teams from each regional and DCMP qualifying for my "double champs ticket" that would be between 122 (61 events) and 92 (46 events) teams qualifying that way, plus the HoF and Legacy teams (you say 27, so we'll go with that). We could even leave out the HoF and Legacy teams (many of those will get a double ticket anyway by winning something).

However, it won't be that many, because some of the same teams will be winning or finalist captains at multiple regionals, and some of those are also HoF teams (e.g., this year, Team 359 would have gotten a "double ticket" 3 ways - captain of winning alliance in Hawaii and Australia, and HoF; but with the new arrangement, they might have elected to stay AC of the #2 alliance at IE, rather than accepting the invitation of the #1 captain, and gotten a ticket that way too if they ended up winner or finalist). With more districts, this multiple qualification will decrease some. Let's say that about 20% of the total slots would be filled by teams that already have a ticket. No wildcards here! (However, these teams may elect to skip a 2nd or 3rd regional if they know they can go to 2 champs instead, so duplication may decrease. This is hard to predict but someone looking at the winners this year could maybe make a better estimate.)

So that leaves about 95-120 teams that would get a "double ticket". Half of these (well, +/-) will be "Region A" teams that get to also go to the Region B Championship, and vice versa. So about 50-60 teams from each region that would otherwise go, will get "displaced" by a 'double-ticket' team. With 400-team regionals, that means 50-60 fewer waitlist teams, and each regional would have maybe 90-100 of these elite teams (depending on whether a larger or smaller number could afford to make the extra trip), and 300 "not-so-elite" teams. A pretty good balance for inspiration of ALL teams, I think - just as "inspiring" (if top-caliber teams are where you get your inspiration) as the 2014 400-team champs, no?

What would this cost FIRST? Well, they would lose the registration fee for the teams that got displaced by the double-ticket holders, so about 50 x $5000 for each competition, or a total of about $500,000 (but they could get it back by increasing the total size of each championship to 450). If FIRST gave each team $5,000 toward their travel and hotel costs, that's about $1,000,000 total, to create what I think would be a really awesome experience for ALL of the teams attending both events. The teams that have earned a Top Spot would get 2 championship experiences, with all (or most) of their top competition at both (or at least at one or the other), and the ability to inspire 600 other teams in total (300 at each event).

FIRST could get whatever they are getting out of having two championships (more teams able to go, less travel distance/cost for many); the cities would get what they have bargained for (maybe actually more); the top teams would have what it seems they are looking for (top competition, to be able to inspire and be inspired by ALL of the best, to see their opposite-region buddies, etc.); the other teams would not lose out on the inspiration provided by top teams in the 'other region' and more of them could go - yet they could still aspire to becoming a "double ticket" team themselves. And the championships couldn't really get too stacked one way or the other, since a "double ticket" (DT) team could not eschew their "own" championship to go to the other. (I guess there could be an agreement that all DT teams from Houston would go to Detroit, and no DT teams from Detroit would go to Houston, making Detroit into the stronger competition - or vice versa - but I wonder if that would/could actually happen? They could implement some kind of swap, where a team from Region A had to agree to go to Region B before one could actually go from B to A - and vice-versa - as has been proposed in the basic swap idea. But here there would also be MORE top teams at both, not just different ones.)

$1,000,000 seems a small price for FIRST to pay for this much awesomeness.
Actually, we qualified 4 ways this season giving 3 wild cards. You don't have to be an alliance captain to give a wild card as long as you win the event.

[Squillo]

Hi, Glenn. I was talking about qualifying for a ticket to both championships under my "double ticket" system. It's kind of a complicated scheme I came up with for solving some of the problems cited on CD with the new "2 championship" arrangement. In my plan, only the alliance captains of the winning and finalist alliances would qualify, so the one where you were a first pick would not have gotten you a "double ticket" (only the two where you were alliance captain + HoF status.

[waialua359]

Hi, Glenn. I was talking about qualifying for a ticket to both championships under my "double ticket" system. It's kind of a complicated scheme I came up with for solving some of the problems cited on CD with the new "2 championship" arrangement. In my plan, only the alliance captains of the winning and finalist alliances would qualify, so the one where you were a first pick would not have gotten you a "double ticket" (only the two where you were alliance captain + HoF status.
OK, I understand now.
I'm not sure I would implement such a system to give out wild cards only as an alliance captain.
We have been fortunate to have been an alliance captain often in recent years. Those that are familiar with the role, understand that the 2 driving forces to selecting partners is optimizing your alliance while limiting the extent in which the other alliance is better than yours. Giving out a wildcard should not be influenced by me choosing to be an alliance captain vs. accepting a higher seeds selection.
In the case of the Week 1 IE regional, we weighed our options on whether to accept or decline and create our own alliance. Because the #1 seeded team had planned to do what I described above, it would have been scorched Earth if we had declined.
Ultimately, we felt our best chance was to accept and the wildcard was given based on our HOF status to a very good finalist alliance, specifically Team 3250 who is worthy of participating at Champs.

[Carolyn_Grace]

You devalue HOF teams by adding two a year.

How? So many teams are deserving of HOF currently, and yet only one can be added at a time.

Two things have been happening annually in FRC:
1. More teams are added every year.
2. Earning CA at any level gets more difficult.

I've already been called out once by stating this, but I stick with its truth: some current HOF teams would not earn the contemporary Regional/District CA, much less HOF status.

Acknowledging two HOF teams per year (as long as they continue to receive the same benefits) will increase the communities awareness of things that contemporary HOF teams accomplish, and provide more teams with the chance to be inspired by them and potentially earn their level of respectability.

[Lil' Lavery]

- You devalue HOF teams by adding two a year.


Bull. Ask if any of the teams from Michigan, MAR, New England, or PNW feel their Chairman's Awards have been devalued by giving out multiple at their championship events. The answer is a resounding no.

[rsegrest]

Connor
The trust and transparency being developed with the community up until this point was completely betrayed by this surprise decision, and that's an unacceptable way of managing this program.
Thank you for the clarification. And I do understand your points. I will add this; this is not a surprise decision on the part of FIRST. It is a surprise announcement to us. While it may be semantics to some it really isn't. I think FIRST HQ has more planning involved in this than anyone is really realizing in the heat of the moment. I am not sure we are all privy to the 'big picture' yet. Someone else pointed out that there was a time when the game wasn't played as a 3-man alliance and coaches and mentors quit over that. That was before my time but I personally believe that it has been a great thing. It has given my team the opportunity to play against and with several of the elite powerhouse teams. Forgive my asking but were you involved in FIRST when that particular switch was made? Did you see it as a good change or a negative one? If you were around, you survived it and can survive this too. If you weren't around, I guess the question is can or do you want to survive this change to continue to inspire your students through this vehicle we call FIRST?

Qbot2640
That is where the focus should be...and if there are still too many teams, then reduce the number each of those districts send.
FIRST is about inclusion not exclusion. (sarcasm alert) If we are going to reduce the number of teams then 2900 (or so) of us should just quit right now and let the same 100 or so elite battle it out every year for the number one spot (end sarcasm). Goodness knows my team is not one of the top 100 elite and may never be yet slightly more than 50% of my team alumni are majoring in STEM fields (and no, these are not the ones who just knew they were going to be engineers before they became part of my program). I kind of thought that was the whole point though, to inspire students who might not otherwise investigate/pursue STEM careers to reconsider their choices.

AGPapa
And if not for meeting all of these great people, how exactly are these teams getting inspired?
In the hope that I am reading this incorrectly I am going to ask for clarification. What exactly are you trying to say? I agree that it would be inspiring to meet some of these greats but we can be equally inspiring within our regionals and districts. I have personally seen it happen.

Also, as a side note. For all those still decrying the Houston choice, I would say come and join us at Lone Star to see how things have changed since 2003. I wasn't there and understand that it was...less than ideal...but that's been 11 years ago and much has changed since then. Come on down in 2016 and see how much.

[AGPapa]

AGPapa

In the hope that I am reading this incorrectly I am going to ask for clarification. What exactly are you trying to say? I agree that it would be inspiring to meet some of these greats but we can be equally inspiring within our regionals and districts. I have personally seen it happen.



I'm saying that champs is inspiring because of these people. If we remove half of these people champs will be less inspiring. Creating a second event isn't more inspiring because there will be less of these great people.

Basically, a lot of people in this thread are saying, "Champs is so inspiring! We should invite more teams!" without explaining what makes champs inspiring and if those qualities will still exist if the community is split.

[Carolyn_Grace]

I'm saying that champs is inspiring because of these people. If we remove half of these people champs will be less inspiring. Creating a second event isn't more inspiring because there will be less of these great people.

Basically, a lot of people in this thread are saying, "Champs is so inspiring! We should invite more teams!" without explaining what makes champs inspiring and if those qualities will still exist if the community is split.

Will there be less inspiring people?

Or will there be more people inspiring there, who we haven't collectively discovered?

Perhaps there will be more opportunity for upcoming inspiring people to step out of the shadows of others.

[Jared Russell]

Most sports with a "Hall of Fame" do not have hard rules that exactly N players be enshrined each year. Instead, they try to maintain an objective bar, and the precise number of new Hall of Famers varies from year to year (within some min/max guidelines).

[rsegrest]

AGPapa,

I understand what you are saying but I think I am more in agreement with Carolyn_Grace. As stated previously my team has had the opportunity to compete with some of the elites. Some were incredibly inspiring...others not so much.

As an example of Carolyn’s reference to people coming out of the shadows: Four years ago I had two team members that were best friends. They played robots with me for three of their high school years (we founded our team the year they were sophomores). Even though they worked hand-in-hand and side-by-side it seemed that student A always outshone student B. Much of that was due to their personalities. After graduation A went to one major university while B went to another. And low and behold, once B was out of A's shadow he just...flew. All the things that were overlooked in him were now plainly visible just because he had the opportunity to shine in his own right. Now here we are four years later, A is currently working as an engineer and B finished his BS in Physics in 3 years and is now pursuing a BS in Mech Eng. Both are successful in their own right. Isn't it possible that there are teams who are equally as inspiring as the elites but are overshadowed by them?

[Rachel Lim]

I think at this point it's important to look back and understand what exactly caused some (many) people to be very upset with this news, while others are either less certain on their side or like it. This is my interpretation, when I tried my best to step back from everything I dislike about it and see it from farther back.

It starts with FIRST's vision: "To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."
And their mission statement: "Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership."

At it's most basic, FIRST aims to inspire students to go into STEM fields. There are obviously many ways to do this. One way is through engineering challenges.

But FRC wasn't created to be an engineering challenge. It's in it's name, FIRST Robotics Competition. It's in the way FIRST describes it, sport of the mind. That was the issue with Recycle Rush: it was more of a challenge than a sport. That is the issue with the split champs: it is more suitable for a challenge than a sport. That is the issue with having more than one champs and more than one winners: it's no longer a competition.

A challenge pushes teams to do the best that they think they can do. A competition pushes teams to do better than the best that they think other teams can do. Often, a competition is necessary to complete a challenge. Consider the space race--would we have landed on the moon nearly as soon if the Cold War hadn't been raging? On the other hand, Curiosity landed on Mars without the need of a war (or the threat of one).

What is my point, then? Challenges and competitions can both push people to do their best. They can both lead to incredible results. They can both inspire students. But they're very different. They attract different people. They inspire differently.

When they said "change is coming," looking back on it, it could be interpreted to say FRC is turning away from being a sport to becoming a challenge. This is the decision FIRST has to make, and the one that we're divided on. Should FIRST continue to try and change our culture by making FRC more like a sport, or by turning it into an engineering challenge? Should the "C" in FRC stand for competition or challenge?

[Tom Line]

Bull. Ask if any of the teams from Michigan, MAR, New England, or PNW feel their Chairman's Awards have been devalued by giving out multiple at their championship events. The answer is a resounding no.

To add to that even more, try competing on a yearly basis for more than a decade against teams like 27, 33, 503, 548 etc for Chairman's. You are pretty much in a holding pattern year after year waiting for them to win worlds to get out of your local region because they are so well established and have done incredible things for so long. Because of the district system, you need to beat all of them to get out of your region.

I'm happy they're so incredible, but I stand with the other person who said there are a lot of deserving teams out there and 2 Chairman's per year would be a nice remedy.

[Carolyn_Grace]

What is my point, then? Challenges and competitions can both push people to do their best. They can both lead to incredible results. They can both inspire students. But they're very different. They attract different people. They inspire differently.

I mostly agree with your analysis between the differences between challenges and competitions, but what I don't agree with is how splitting champs into two events automatically places FRC into the challenge category, completely taking away the competition.

It's STILL a competition. FIRST/FRC has never said that they are about ONE winner. In fact, every year we have THREE winners. If we truly wanted the best of the best of the best to win, then perhaps we shouldn't call the second and third robots on Einstein winners...

[TDav540]

When they said "change is coming," looking back on it, it could be interpreted to say FRC is turning away from being a sport to becoming a challenge. This is the decision FIRST has to make, and the one that we're divided on. Should FIRST continue to try and change our culture by making FRC more like a sport, or by turning it into an engineering challenge? Should the "C" in FRC stand for competition or challenge?

After considering this for a significant period of time, I'm come to the conclusion that, in my opinion, FRC still stands for competition. Follow me through the end:

District competitions still crown one set of champions. So do district championships and regional competitions. These are still competitive events, and make up the majority of the events in FRC. Are they the goal of the FRC super-elite? Not necessarily, but they are still an integral part of the FIRST Robotics experience, and I would easily call these competitions.

Does not having a single, world champion alliance make that big a difference? To some, for sure, but I still think having six or eight champions is nearly no different from four. Think about the Einstein finalist from the last season: sure they didn't beat the eventual champions, but I could easily imagine a world where that alliance squeaked out a F3 win. So two champion alliances doesn't bother me from that perspective: it still is a competition.

I agree with the idea that FIRST is moving toward a challenge-based game series rather than sports. Whether this is good or not is entirely up to the individual. But I still believe it is a competition. We still have two alliances competing, even if only loosely this year. We still name winners. We still aim to score the highest, instead of just achieving a time or a number. If the GDC ever makes the game end at a certain score, or stop the match at a certain time once the goal is achieved, then maybe we will have to consider FRC a challenge instead of a competition. But for now there still is an element(s) of competition, and I treat it as such.

[BrennanB]

How? So many teams are deserving of HOF currently, and yet only one can be added at a time.

Two things have been happening annually in FRC:
1. More teams are added every year.
2. Earning CA at any level gets more difficult.


Perhaps poorly thought out/worded. It's not that there aren't tons of deserving teams out there. It just feels inconclusive, what if one region becomes/is stronger than the other? Maybe this won't happen, i'm not sure.

Bull. Ask if any of the teams from Michigan, MAR, New England, or PNW feel their Chairman's Awards have been devalued by giving out multiple at their championship events. The answer is a resounding no.

There is a big difference here... Districts isn't the final stage here. It's also not what I was saying. My gut reaction was that previous winners accomplishments would be losing value due to more awards being given yearly, not that teams winning would feel like their win is cheap.

Then again as we know winning becomes harder and harder each year, maybe after a few of the double award years winning the award at the event will have been harder than championships now.

After some further thought multiple HOF teams is probably not an issue.


It's STILL a competition. FIRST/FRC has never said that they are about ONE winner. In fact, every year we have THREE winners. If we truly wanted the best of the best of the best to win, then perhaps we shouldn't call the second and third robots on Einstein winners...

This is also separate from chairman. All three teams have to work together to get the win. Still hasn't been a year where one team can 100% solo carry.

[waialua359]

Most sports with a "Hall of Fame" do not have hard rules that exactly N players be enshrined each year. Instead, they try to maintain an objective bar, and the precise number of new Hall of Famers varies from year to year (within some min/max guidelines).

Jared,
love this post!!

Why not have N no. of teams each year receive the CCA if they deserve it based on a criteria set forth by FIRST?

[EricLeifermann]

Jared,
love this post!!

Why not have N no. of teams each year receive the CCA if they deserve it based on a criteria set forth by FIRST?

This isn't a bad idea though I think they would have to stop having CCA's get auto bids into champs each year. As the number of teams with auto bids would potentially increase at too large a rate to keep that privilege.

[waialua359]

This isn't a bad idea though I think they would have to stop having CCA's get auto bids into champs each year. As the number of teams with auto bids would potentially increase at too large a rate to keep that privilege.
Eric, I see your concern.
With the direction that FIRST is going increasing the venue capacity and/or having more than 1 venue, I could see it not being a problem, at least for now.

Karthik did some no. crunching on behalf of the HOF teams earlier this school year, where the majority of the HOF teams have qualified anyways without the status in recent years.

[xman206]

This defeats the whole purpose of the World Championship...How good would one feel if they were to win one of the two championships?

[Jared Russell]

This isn't a bad idea though I think they would have to stop having CCA's get auto bids into champs each year. As the number of teams with auto bids would potentially increase at too large a rate to keep that privilege.

I think this becomes more manageable as a larger percentage of teams competes under the district system. Give each CCA team a 4 year window of auto-qualification, afterwards they receive some number of district points as a recurring bonus to compensate for their ineligibility* to receive the large culture changing awards.

(* officially, there is no policy that disqualifies CCA teams from District/Regional Chairman's/EI consideration in later years, and indeed, some have received EI since their Chairman's win. Unofficially, there is often some sentiment among the judges that it is time for someone else to win these awards.)

[Mullen]

This defeats the whole purpose of the World Championship...How good would one feel if they were to win one of the two championships?

I'd feel pretty good.

[Alan Anderson]

This defeats the whole purpose of the World Championship...How good would one feel if they were to win one of the two championships?

I've had enough time to think about this from many angles now. My current position is this:

From the point of view of a student who never knew a time before the championshplit, I think winning (for example) the "FRC North Conference" championship would feel pretty good. So what if the South Conference teams aren't there? It's still going to be bigger than the entirety of FRC was in 2000. Those of us living through the transition will feel the pain, but after it's done it's likely that the positives will outweigh the negatives for the majority of teams.

Having it be a net positive is very likely if we focus on the ways it can be so.



I would probably have been happier to keep a single FIRST Championship, even if it has to be smaller, if a lot of what makes it especially inspiring could be infused into the District championships. Unfortunately, trying to fill two Championships to the level of the existing one is going to make it more difficult to pump up the District events.

[Koko Ed]

All these people complaining about playing in a convention center were the same people who were perfectly happy to play in a Disney parking lot and are eager to go back to do the same again. I really wish FIRST stuck with the superegional plan but I'm down with helping them get their idea off the ground. What can I say, I'm a total yes man. I'm gonna do the best I can to get FIRST where they want to be.

[tedjtran]

The 2015 World Championship will have 8 subdivisions. Of those 8 subdivisions, a total of 64 alliances will compete for the title of "World Champions".

Being the college basketball enthusiast I am, I'm absolutely ecstatic that the playoff format of the World Championship is similar in size to the NCAA's March Madness. With so many alliances competing in one big tournament, almost anything can happen and that just sounds super exciting to me.

Hearing that 2017 will feature 2 championship events sounds like such a huge step down from what FIRST is doing this year. It just doesn't seem like a fitting end to an FRC season when there are 2 championship alliances.

I understand that FIRST wants more kids to experience championship events, but it also just seems odd to me to have 2 events located near the center of the States.

[David Lame]

I keep thinking about the anecdote, often attributed, probably wrongly, to Abraham Lincoln. The short version is

"If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does my dog have?"
The person he was talking to answered, "Five."
Lincoln responded, "No. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

I can think of all sorts of reasons why this two event model might be a good idea, but calling them championships doesn't make them championships.

ETA: And I suppose they could still be "northern division" championships or some such, but they can't be two world championships. They can't be two of the same thing that they replace.

[Dustin Shadbolt]

This defeats the whole purpose of the World Championship...How good would one feel if they were to win one of the two championships?

I'd be on cloud 9...

[cadandcookies]

I'd love to see a world championship event return in coming years, but I'm willing to take at least a sip of the two Championship Kool-Aid before I spit it out in disgust.

FIRST is in a difficult position here. Some of it is their own making, but a large part of it is just being the victims of their own success. Volunteer infrastructure simply isn't where it needs to be in a lot of places to allow FIRST to run the program exactly how they want to (which is likely quite similar to that 2011 proposal). A lot can happen in five short years, and while I'm still not sure about the path HQ is leading us down, I must admit a certain amount of excitement to see what comes out on the other side.

[nfhammes]

FIRST is in a difficult position here. Some of it is their own making, but a large part of it is just being the victims of their own success. Volunteer infrastructure simply isn't where it needs to be in a lot of places to allow FIRST to run the program exactly how they want to (which is likely quite similar to that 2011 proposal).

And that might be it - that they'd love to do something like the 2011 / Super Regional model, but it was a huge enough growing pain for FTC, and they're not convinced they can make the same huge leap in FRC. Splitting to two CMP events also gives the FTC Super Regional model a bit of space to grow, by doubling their slots, too. Maybe in 2020, they add two or three more CMP-level events that qualify teams to a late May World Championship event, adding an extra tier for FRC, at the level of existing Super Regionals for FTC, and acting as another World Festival for FLL. If this is a growth towards that old plan, it's really not a terrible solution for a difficult problem.

Having two CMP events is also a great way to get more CMP key volunteers, especially some of the roles that have been filled by a relatively small number of people for a while. Growing that pool is a valuable sustainability measure for FIRST, whether or not they're expanding towards a Super Regional-like model. The field expansion this year works towards that same goal.

[cglrcng]

Will there be less inspiring people?

Or will there be more people inspiring there, who we haven't collectively discovered?

Perhaps there will be more opportunity for upcoming inspiring people to step out of the shadows of others.

_______________________

Or will "more be inspired" by the inclusion annually of another 400 teams gaining the Championships experience in 2017, over the 2014 Championships? (Yes, they added 200 this year and possibly next, but was that to gradually prepare and slide into the even higher inclusion and get set for 2017?)

Which is the already stated goal by FIRST and The Committee that was no real secret (3 Doc's were listed in the other thread, some repeatedly). There was a roadmap and tea leaves (only the final result was an actual secret), and they have already said they are listening and wish to work with the community to help cure the biggest ills of a completion of an annual Championship that many do seek as inspiration they put forth for their teams as a mission ...My take...The Community missed the hints and street signs along the way (I think in hindsight and looking back over all that was said and laid out over the last 3 or so years), mainly because the community as a whole, or here on CD at least, simply don't want the current conditions to be modified or change.

But continued existensial growth is requiring it do so (change), or we add another expensive & time consuming layer taxing all teams. Mix em up often(as most teams really won't save that much money anyway given the locations), and send the winners only from South to North to finish off Einstein, set aside $50.00 from each of the 800 Teams entries, and give each of the 4 Teams 10K addl'. expense money to fly home & back (shipping their Robots and equipment from Houston to Detroit), only 4 teams get that inconvenience...The 4 teams w/ a 50/50 shot at a Championship after Championship #1 each year.

Or, Set aside $100.00 from each of the 800 Teams and bring all 8 Teams back mid-June for a Televised Superbowl Of FIRST FRC World Champs Playoffs (Best of 5, or 7, or even a Best of 9 matches), giving each team 10K for expenses, and ship all 8 teams Bots & Tools to that location as soon as their Co-Champs matches are completed. A showcase event both Alliances would certainly deserve...The Full Red Carpet Treatment! (Then send them to The Whitehouse, or maybe Disneyworld!)

Hey, hold that Championship Playoffs it at either place.

[Kevin Leonard]

I'd be on cloud 9...

I'd be on one of two Cloud 4.5's.
:P

[Dustin Shadbolt]

I'd be on one of two Cloud 4.5's.
:P

Well played sir....Well played. :)

[cglrcng]

I'd love to see a world championship event return in coming years, but I'm willing to take at least a sip of the two Championship Kool-Aid before I spit it out in disgust.

FIRST is in a difficult position here. Some of it is their own making, but a large part of it is just being the victims of their own success. Volunteer infrastructure simply isn't where it needs to be in a lot of places to allow FIRST to run the program exactly how they want to (which is likely quite similar to that 2011 proposal). A lot can happen in five short years, and while I'm still not sure about the path HQ is leading us down, I must admit a certain amount of excitement to see what comes out on the other side.

__________________

Pass that over I want a sip also! LOL.

BTW...Last year there were 4 Champions, and 4 Finalists! Did anyone cry when 6 became 8? (And they are listening to thoughts on getting the North/South Champions together for a reasonable playoff scenario). They did not say...THE END. They said Town Hall in St. Louis in a week and a half, let's hear some reasonable input from the community.

I never mind splitting a very large poker pot amongst willing players.....But, you best believe that we are going to leave a sizeable chunk in there and play that game out to the last bitter card. I want to know who the real champ is!
________________________

Added:

While we may only be in 1 single place this year, and you can wave & talk to and converse with anyone from 600+ Teams that you like...You will still only play in 1 Division w/ 74 Other Teams, then in Sub-Divisions w/ 63 other teams if you advance to the Einstein Championship Finals. Your total competitive contact 137 maximum teams total....AMIRITE? (But yes, it will be a true Championship). Now...Put 300 of those teams (4 Divisions), down the street in another building, let everyone play out on 2 ladders, and bring the final winners together, and let them playoff...You still have a World Championship. Now just move those 2 buildings a couple million blocks away from each other. Do the same thing.

*My Request...Not my Teams.....***FIRST, Please inconvenience me and ask me to come play an extra play date, next week or 3 weeks or a month later, with an FRC WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE on the line. (I'll race ya there, if I have to crawl on my bare hands & kneecaps!) Now: If you throw in a 10K sweetener to help cover some of my expenses...I'll be kissing you too when I arrive all bloody & skinned up. (Now televise it and make it big, a full blown 8 team production!)

That's just $50.00 Ea. =$80K Set aside / $5,000 for 800 teams. (Figured on 4 Team Alliances). Yes, International (Alaska/Hawaii), teams it would be much tougher on. No doubt there. Ask how many would balk though.