Future Championship Poll

[Amo10]

I made this poll as a way to visualize the response to the 2017+ Championship system without having to sift through pages of conversation.

[BBray_T1296]

I suggest we post in this thread specific, concise reasons we voted the way we did. No conversation, just list generation.

This might help FIRST's addressing of the outcry if they can quantifiably see the areas of most concern.

[Ichlieberoboter]

I think it would be better if they did a system like FTC has with the four superregionals so that even more teams would get the "championship experience" but the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP would still actually be the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.

[SenorZ]

Championship means a tournament to determine who is best. Having a "championship" one weekend, with half the best teams (???) followed by another "championship" a week later, betrays the name "championship".

[Sperkowsky]

this is similar to how they do womans gymnastics. in level 9 they have easterns and westerns yet they are both called nationals. its a little weird but its how they have always done it.

[Whippet]

I'm going to hold off on having an opinion on this until 2015 Champs is over, hence the "I don't know yet."

[The other Gabe]

I don't know yet because not enough information/details have been released. There may be an obvious need for this that has not been made clear by the organizers of FIRST.
Leaning towards not liking it though because of their talk of making it more accessible, while moving it further away from my team at both venues

[pmangels17]

No. They presented something ambiguous and seemingly problematic without addressing obvious concerns. It is unsettling that "more is to come" because I believe there should've been more foresight and addressing all these problems BEFORE they committed to this format. Now they have no option but to push ahead. If this is an indication of similarly poor planning by FIRST in the future, and extreme lack of concern for teams (evidenced by them not asking anyone about this before making the change), then I fear that FIRST will soon fail to be the premier format for competition robotics. I know it's not all about the robot, but I signed up for a competition, not a convention, and so did many other people.

[Alan Anderson]

I don't like the dual championships.
I don't like the choice of locations.
I don't like the way this was announced.

But I don't think my personal feelings about it are important right now. I'll wait and see how it goes.

[ForgotSemicolon]

I'd like to meet high level teams around the world, not half of said teams

[Pretzel]

I voted no for the following reasons:

- A large part of the inspiration from the events like championships and IRI comes from the interaction with high level teams. Splitting the championships means you're splitting the teams and some teams will never have a chance to talk with others and expand their horizons accordingly.

- Though this is a minor detail and would likely not affect my current team, it seems a bit odd to pick a city notorious for violent crime to host one of the championship events

- From Merriam-Webster
Championship
noun
: an important competition that decides which player or team is the best in a particular sport, game, etc.

I fail to see how you can decide who the best is when not all the teams are competing against each other.

Regardless of what the events are called, they would not be "championships" to me.

[George Nishimura]

I am unhappy about the announcement. But I voted "I don't know" because it would be presumptuous for me to say it won't be better. A lot of good changes start off looking bad, especially if they are willing to iterate over the idea by engaging the community.

How and why they made the change is my major disagreement.

[Samwaldo]

Of course this could change or be clarified in the future, but the way im seeing this now is: (say the champs are in detroit and houston) If my rookie team from Michigan is just lucky enough to advance to detroit, I wont get the experience to learn from texas teams like 118, etc. in person.

[Qbot2640]

NO

Watering down the honor of being at "Championship"

[Brad Hanel]

I voted "I don't know yet," for the reason that FIRST hasn't clarified something yet.

One of the main arguments against this is that you can't have a championship when not all the best teams are competing against each other. But we already have that sort of thing with divisions.

If FIRST has the teams that win at each of the two places play against each other, or even has teams qualify for Einstein and then Einstein is played somewhere where teams from both play to decide a winner, then I'd be all for it. But then again we already have 3 champions a year, why not six?

But then again, not being able to see all of the best teams is a negative.

[mrnoble]

I strongly disagree with the way this major decision was made.

[Jay Burnett]

I disagree with splitting into two "world championships" based on geographic location because it seems to defeat the whole goal of FIRST. They want to be a sport, but then they don't want anyone to loose. Just because we are robotics kids, some of us nerds, geeks who might not enjoy much outside of our computer screens and tools, does not mean we can't handle losing a bit. Losing is good for you in some cases, it makes you want to be better, it gives that drive, that chip on your shoulder to learn from those world-class teams and give them a run for their money next season. Now, most kids won't even get to see the best teams. teams from the west coast like 254 and teams from GA (which sorely could benefit from studying up on the poofs) won't even meet at worlds! they will be in different locations. Now FIRST will be lying to us. Winners of the new championships won't really be world champions or the best in the world at all. They will be the best in half-the-world. Splitting the event in two makes it less of a competition in my eyes, more of an expo, and less of a sport. Bring districts to the entire world. More matches, same amount of money, a worldwide ranking system based out of district points (maybe), a championship experience at the super-regional or DCMP for the lower teams, and the actual WCMP for the top tier. This all-inclusive nature that FIRST is trying to create is a problem they have created for themselves. Worlds now requires two venues because they have invited so many teams to be a part that might not deserve it (not knocking their achievements at all). Instead make a more dynamic and better district system, decked out with tiers for increasing levels of play, and end with a selective best-of-the-best WCMP. Even if my team never makes it there, we will still have had a CMP experience in our district, and if TV were a part of the WCMP deal, the insight we would gain from interviews with the actual best in the game would make up for not being there in person.

[Kevin Leonard]

I like having one set of world champions. I aspire to be one.
I hate the "everyone's a winner" mentality.
I don't like splitting teams along geographical boundaries.
I don't like splitting teams between two world championships.
I don't like the community not being consulted about this decision.

I'm relatively neutral on the locations, as it does make travel slightly easier for NY teams.

I would advocate for a Districts->DCMP->Super Regionals-> Worlds setup as well, with the goal being to up the ante on how impressive and inspiring DCMP and Super Regionals can be.
I also think DCMP should be free if you qualify.

As for the current state of being stuck with two events due to signed contracts starting in 2017- maybe we can make one of those events FLL/FTC, and the other just FRC? I don't know what other solutions there could be, but I think we , as a community, can try to find one.

[AGPapa]

I voted no because it would split up the community. What makes Champs great is having everybody together.



I would advocate for a Districts->DCMP->Super Regionals-> Worlds setup

I'm always confused by this mindset. Three tiers is enough, why add a fourth when most areas still only have two?

Instead make it
Districts->DCMP->World
and
Regionals->Super Regionals->World

Three tiers is all you need; the proportion of teams qualifying from a DCMP can be easily adjusted, no need for yet another tier.

[Kevin Leonard]

I voted no because it would split up the community. What makes Champs great is having everybody together.




I'm always confused by this mindset. Three tiers is enough, why add a fourth when most areas still only have two?

Instead make it
Districts->DCMP->World
and
Regionals->Super Regionals->World

Three tiers is all you need; the proportion of teams qualifying from a DCMP can be easily adjusted, no need for yet another tier.

For now, yeah, but in the very long term, I think you'll need four tiers.
But for now I just want everywhere to go to districts.

[coalhot]

I don't know yet, and only because I want to see what the end goal for FIRST here is. As Dave Lavery said in the other thread, there's some information missing/unannounced yet.

If what was announced yesterday is all, it's a disappointing but inevitable shift in the way the FIRST championship will be held.

[Chinske4296]

We should make a google poll, and post the link here. Then we could graph the popularity, and peoples opinions of other options such as super regionals.