View Full Version : [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Jacob Bendicksen
10-04-2015, 14:01
From http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Were-Listening:
One of the many things I love about FIRST is the amount of passion so many of our community members have. I love it because it shows FIRST is meaningful to you, and you care about its future. I know that for many of us, FIRST isn’t just something that you do, it’s something that you are, and that fact can drive intense emotion when you see something happen with which you disagree. With yesterday’s announcement about FIRST going to two Championships starting in 2017, we’re seeing this passion by the truckload in the community’s reaction.
I personally believe that Championship is about two things – Inspiration and Recognition. I don’t think I’m going out on limb here. I believe some percentage of our teams deserve recognition. These are the teams that win the awards and have the great robots, strategy, and skill necessary to perform at the highest levels on the field. Those teams rightly get attention and accolades from the community for their tremendous accomplishments, and, I think, help drive the aspirations of teams that someday want to be able to perform at that level. I also believe, though, that all our teams deserve inspiration. Even if a team places dead last in the rankings at any given event, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t the possibility for a positive transformation in a team member’s life by attending Championship – even if her team places dead last there, too. This is our goal – to have Championships at which, no matter how well a team’s robot does on the field, the event becomes a lifelong positive memory, a part of the team members’ narrative identities they use to explain to themselves, at least, who they are and what their purpose is. This is an extraordinarily high bar we’ve set, but ‘More Than Robots’ is not just a marketing slogan for us, it’s something that is, and always will be, our core.
Fundamentally, this change to two Championships is about making the Championship experience more accessible to more teams. Our plan right now is to have 400 FRC teams attending each of the two Championships, for 800 teams total. Assuming only a modest 6% growth in FRC teams in 2016 and 2017, the total number we will have when this second Championship becomes active in 2017 will be about 3,250. This means that about 25% of FRC teams will be able to attend. I would love to have every student on every FRC team be able to attend a FIRST Championship at least once in their High School FRC careers. Increasing the number of teams attending gets us closer to that. Most teams will still be earning their way to the events because of their performance during the regular season, or because of their performance in prior seasons, but a minority will be there because they got lucky with the waitlist. I believe this split path approach to Championship supports our mission to both recognize and inspire.
To meet our lofty goals, though, we will need your help. As Don said in his video, we want to engage members of the community in coming up with the best solutions possible to the challenges presented to this two Championship approach. The concerns you’ve expressed are valid. Over the next several months you will see a number of initiatives intended to engage the community in helping shape what these Championships and activities surrounding them will look like. As an example, we are currently planning a town-hall style meeting at the 2015 FIRST Championship that will allow the community to engage directly with Senior FIRST Leadership on this important change. 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
Can I request that this be merged with the other thread in order to keep all the discussion in one place?
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.
It's good to read this. It's still of great concern that this dramatic change was announced before any feedback was taken from HoF teams, WFA recipients, and other pillars of the community. But it's good to see that Frank and co are open to suggestions about how to fix at least some of the many concerns this new plan has raised.
Sounds like they wont be changing the region lock, so no seeing 1114 :/
Also sounds like there's still going to be one "better" championship.
I was about to post this actually! I was refraining in posting for the thread with the previous blog entry expecting a blog post like this.
As a person whose team has never been to champs (we almost went with the 2013 waitlist), I can see Frank's reasoning really well (I'm probably biased). Champs is a dream for every team, regardless of their skill, and this makes it a lot more possible. Teams won't be as deterred as easily once they face a bit of trouble because there's a bigger chance of reaching their Ultimate Goal. Of course winning shouldn't be an incentive as much as personal bests, but we all feel this way sometimes. Now all those thoughts about having the two championship winners competing against each other are possible. Robot joust anyone?
edit: That's not to say everything is completely fine again forever and ever. People will still have concerns, but hopefully this way the concerns will be able to be touched upon and helped.
Conor Ryan
10-04-2015, 14:08
Have Faith in Frank! A solution will be found.
I think the community agrees that a True International Champion Alliance should be crowned. We just need to figure out how to do it in a way that will work elegantly.
EricLeifermann
10-04-2015, 14:09
Sounds like they wont be changing the region lock, so no seeing 1114 :/
Also sounds like there's still going to be one "better" championship.
Not necessarily true. If a legit suggestions are brought to the table. Like having one location be FTC, and the FLL programs while the otherocation is just FRC everyone might get what their looking for.
Of course FIRST could have just stuck with the plan they laid out a few years ago and everything would have been just fine....
Like having one location be FTC, and the FLL programs while the otherocation is just FRC everyone might get what their looking for.
This would be perfect, but i think they want to keep all the programs together so the younger people can see what they will eventually do and inspire them.
GreyingJay
10-04-2015, 14:20
I like that they are listening, but it sounds like we are essentially redefining "Championships" to this often-bandied term "Super Regionals".
So instead of regionals and championships, we will have regionals (or districts), two winning alliances from two "regional championships", and then some form of match between those two for the real title of "World Champion".
I like the passion that Frank has described for making sure as many students as possible make it to a championship. He has basically exactly described our team and our students. I think this concept will work if they acknowledge that these two regional championships are exactly that, regional championships, not dual world championships.
Andrew Lawrence
10-04-2015, 14:20
Can I request that this be merged with the other thread in order to keep all the discussion in one place?
Actually, I think it would be more appropriate to keep the initial reactions in that first thread, with the updated ones here.
Being the overly optimistic person that I am, I have hope that these meetings and future endeavors by FIRST HQ will result in a more positive outcome than what everyone had originally panicked about yesterday. That being said, with all of my optimism, I still don't know how many people will stay involved with the program, or why they should.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
10-04-2015, 14:22
This would be perfect, but i think they want to keep all the programs together so the younger people can see what they will eventually do and inspire them.
I agree. But one could also argue though that these FLL and FTC teams would rather have more slots at championship than they currently have than be squished with FRC just so they can see them every once in a while. The percentage of teams FLL can send to champs vs FRC isn't even comparable.
Jonathan Norris
10-04-2015, 14:23
Ugh, as much as I like Frank, this blog post just confirmed most of my biggest issues with the whole concept. Extremely disappointed.
Anupam Goli
10-04-2015, 14:24
They are taking community feedback into account now, but the FIRST senior leaders should've consultes some of the FRC community members before booking venues and marching forward. I am still if the opinion that we can get the inspiration and recognition... at the district championship and super regional level. Worlds is definitely an amazing and inspirational experience. I certainly wouldn't be as active as I am if I hadn't gone to worlds in high school. But as FRC becomes more and more commonplace, I feel like we can bring that amazing experience to a more accesible, local level, while having one amazing championship.
They want championships to be inspirational for people, but I can guarantee it won't be as inspirational when you only get to interact with half of the FIRST community.
I understand that they want to engage more people and allow them to see the championships as a team, the method they're going about doing this seems to me like it would cheapen the overall experience for everyone involved.
Tom Bottiglieri
10-04-2015, 14:29
After reading this blog post, I feel 0% better about this whole situation. FIRST has totally swung and missed on this.
Kevin Leonard
10-04-2015, 14:30
Stop making champs less inspirational, and work on making DCMP's and Super Regionals more inspiring.
Asking for feedback after already making the decision is like a politician asking for their constituents' input after already voting for a law.
It's good that FIRST claims to be listening now, but I wish they would have asked sooner.
Abhishek R
10-04-2015, 14:34
While I understand expanding championships to more teams, I don't think 2 events is the solution. I like being able to meet and see all the great teams from Michigan, Canada, etc all at once. I'd much rather see one large championship with 800 teams. If we're already at 8 divisions, why not just add some more teams to each? I get the time and volunteer issues, but it seems like a better alternative to multiple championships. And just having the two winning alliances play each other doesn't solve much except possibly the "undisputed best of the season" issue, it still means we won't get to see all the cool designs and amazing students and mentors from around the world.
Stop making champs less inspirational, and work on making DCMP's and Super Regionals more inspiring.
This. This goes directly with the whole core of "raising the floor" of the competition. Two championships is much less inspirational than one, very little of my frustration with the situation is about the two top alliances playing each other, and that is the only thing that they seem to think it's about.
This championship format is less inspiring and provides less inspiration for science and technology. The solution, in my personal opinion, is to make DCMPS's and SR's more inspiring. Raise the floor, don't lower the ceiling.
Stop making champs less inspirational, and work on making DCMP's and Super Regionals more inspiring.
I feel like this is how most people (including myself) feel about this issue.
Jonathan Norris
10-04-2015, 14:44
After reading this blog post, I feel 0% better about this whole situation. FIRST has totally swung and missed on this.
Yup.
How can we protest this move at Champs this year without being disruptive/disrespectful?
The public meeting about double Champs is already going to be a disaster.
I think it's important that FIRST understands in person how many people in the community are against this move, but its more important that we don't disrupt the experience for our students at this year's Championship. And please don't boo when they announce this at Champs (silence is just as effective).
JohnSchneider
10-04-2015, 14:45
Is the town hall meeting being held in the main colloseum? Because at this rate it's going to need to be to handle all the people...
I suspect the reason they made the announcement so suddenly was that FIRST HQ wanted to implement the Championshplit, but they decided that, as they saying goes, "it would be better to ask for forgiveness than ask permission". The sudden response asking for "our help" falls in line with this theory.
Disclaimer: This is my theory about this. My information isn't perfect, but from what I have, it is the best I can come up with.
Michael Corsetto
10-04-2015, 14:46
Blog post title correction "We're listening... now"
This. This goes directly with the whole core of "raising the floor" of the competition. Two championships is much less inspirational than one, very little of my frustration with the situation is about the two top alliances playing each other, and that is the only thing that they seem to think it's about.
This championship format is less inspiring and provides less inspiration for science and technology. The solution, in my personal opinion, is to make DCMPS's and SR's more inspiring. Raise the floor, don't lower the ceiling.
Ditto what Zach and Kevin said. CMP is important, don't get me wrong, but at the end of the day DCMPs will have the opportunity to touch more students then CMP ever will. DCMPs were supposed to have all of the inspiration and pageantry regional events had, if not more to be almost mini CMPs (in the look, feel, and set-up of the events that is). They've all pretty much fallen flat after year one.
Lets work on getting those events to a high caliber level that provides incredible inspiration experiences to students.
marshall
10-04-2015, 14:49
It's a start...
audietron
10-04-2015, 14:49
The elite Super teams are going to continue to not like this, along with most teams that have already been to championship. The teams that have not been to championship before may not care whether there is one or two places to go. They just are as excited either way.
Justin Montois
10-04-2015, 14:51
Ugh, as much as I like Frank, this blog post just confirmed most of my biggest issues with the whole concept. Extremely disappointed.
After reading this blog post, I feel 0% better about this whole situation. FIRST has totally swung and missed on this.
This. This goes directly with the whole core of "raising the floor" of the competition. Two championships is much less inspirational than one, very little of my frustration with the situation is about the two top alliances playing each other, and that is the only thing that they seem to think it's about.
This championship format is less inspiring and provides less inspiration for science and technology. The solution, in my personal opinion, is to make DCMPS's and SR's more inspiring. Raise the floor, don't lower the ceiling.
I agree. I'm sorry but I just cringe every time when I hear; "It's not about the robots"
Championship should be a place for the best teams and robots. If other events aren't inspiring enough then work on that.
The Varsity "Sport" of the Mind needs to have a Championship that follows the model of other sports. The teams in the Championship earn their way there. The teams not there work hard and try to get better so they can be there one day. Teams that aren't good enough, they don't get to go. I'm sorry but that's real life. That's the mindset that needs to be propagated in my opinion.
JohnSchneider
10-04-2015, 14:54
I agree. I'm sorry but I just cringe every time "It's not about the robots"
This has been needed to be amended to "it's not JUST about the robots" for a long time. It's a robotics competition, not a science fair. The robot matters.
waialua359
10-04-2015, 14:55
I have mixed feelings about the change.
Everyone asks the question, "Why do I want to go to the Championships?"
Obviously, to try and win the World Championships are a dream to many, but as Frank pointed out, its also to provide the other inspiring aspects that the Championship brings.
But what exactly is that for every team? It'll vary from team to team.
For me personally, its to be able to meet and converse with teams from around the world that have earned their spot to the event.
Being geographically assigned to an event will never allow us to see 1/2 of the teams that make it to Champs (as it stands) ever.
I wanted to suggest that the venue and divisions be "random" similar to how they do it now, so that its a crapshoot which event you get AND who you play with. However, I also realize teams could get very upset if they for example, live in Texas but get assigned to Detroit.
Having 2 World Championships doesnt have an easy solution for this....
Tom Bottiglieri
10-04-2015, 14:58
The elite Super teams are going to continue to not like this, along with most teams that have already been to championship. The teams that have not been to championship before may not care whether there is one or two places to go. They just are as excited either way.
Sure, there is value in more teams going to the the championship event, but at what cost? Is paying to go to Detroit to see 400 boxes on wheels drive around in circles any more inspirational than driving to your DCMP to be a part of a higher caliber event?
You can make an argument that the teams we are trying to introduce to CMP wouldn't exist without the drive of a group of mentors, volunteers, and sponsors who have made things like easy to use control systems and kit drive bases possible. The people directly involved in building up FRC love FIRST because it's not only a way to positively impact and inspire students, but also a way to participate in a really cool competition. The drive to be the best has driven many of the innovations that has allowed FRC to be what it is today. If you take that goal away, what is there to strive for? Who wants to be a part of a competition where everyone is a winner?
FIMAlumni
10-04-2015, 15:01
Reading through some of the comments, I wonder how people would feel about the following:
Detroit: Super District championship. No more District(or state) championships, but all the district winners/wildcard teams would advance from their districts (FIM,PWM,MAR, ect.) to Detroit. Matches would play out and we would crown a District championship alliance. Teams would continue to be ranked in their respective district systems and qualify worlds based on rank.
Houston: Typical world championship with teams from across the globe, including teams that qualified at the super district championship.
Just an idea considering I'm guessing FIRST now has contracts with both Detroit and Houston to bring 400+ teams to the city.
jman4747
10-04-2015, 15:01
Well FIRST has defined what their purpose for championships is and how they want to achieve it. That much is their right. They have asked us to help them make it work and I say we should help.
If you don't think it aligns with your way of inspiring people than I guess FRC isn't for you? Because somehow this just won't inspire any new people ever again?
George Nishimura
10-04-2015, 15:02
I welcome this as a gesture of good will and a potential start to a solution, but the situation has not changed, and my disappointment is still in tact.
It's going to be my first time at St. Louis, but it seems like it's going to be an extra lively one!
The elite Super teams are going to continue to not like this, along with most teams that have already been to championship. The teams that have not been to championship before may not care whether there is one or two places to go. They just are as excited either way.
This is incredibly accurate. And although I believe those elite teams do have the right to be worried and concerned, but I think many people are overlooking their privilege to attend championships each year. Not everyone always qualifies, and the chance to go to championships is really a life changing event and one the advances the mission of FIRST. Getting that to more of FIRST's participants is an excellent and neccessary goal.
That being said, is this 'fix' perfect as is? No, but there is still time to make those changes to make it a more enjoyable experience for those elite teams as well as the wait list, rookies, and first-time-attending teams.
I hope they do the same with the chairman's winners between the two as well.
The elite Super teams are going to continue to not like this, along with most teams that have already been to championship. The teams that have not been to championship before may not care whether there is one or two places to go. They just are as excited either way.
Our team is a middle team. We has never been to worlds, and just last week was our first District Championship, and we were inspired by some of the greatest teams in the PNW, but not being able to see about half of the teams that can be considered "The Greatest of X year" if we ever made it kind of cheapens the idea of being able to go to worlds. Teams like us miss out on some of the greatest teams in the east coast and across the Atlantic, while the other misses the west coast and on. I always hear about how inspired people are when they go to worlds, with this teams like us may miss the wonder and inspiration one could get with this new system.
Personally, im not excited. As for the rest of my team, they are on spring break, and they wont know till i say something about it. If i were to guess, The mentors will be torn between more chances but less inspiration on how to be better, the more "there for fun" people will be happy to get out of school if we make it, but the ones like me who are here to build, learn, be inspired, and compete, they wont like this setup, as there is less powerhouse teams to talk to and learn from, it will be more middle teams (like us) and ones who kind of just are along for the ride.
*These are explicitly my views, not of my team, sponsors, and such.*
Kevin Leonard
10-04-2015, 15:04
Reading through some of the comments, I wonder how people would feel about the following:
Detroit: Super District championship. No more District(or state) championships, but all the district winners/wildcard teams would advance from their districts (FIM,PWM,MAR, ect.) to Detroit. Matches would play out and we would crown a District championship alliance. Teams would continue to be ranked in their respective district systems and qualify worlds based on rank.
Houston: Typical world championship with teams from across the globe, including teams that qualified at the super district championship.
Just an idea considering I'm guessing FIRST now has contracts with both Detroit and Houston to bring 400+ teams to the city.
I like the idea of turning the first event into a super-regional and the second one into the actual world championship. The biggest problem is that the teams that qualify for champs from that super-regional now have a week to arrange plans for worlds.
Stop making champs less inspirational, and work on making DCMP's and Super Regionals more inspiring.Why only those?
You know, the more time I spend in these topics, the more the argument that "Only big teams strongly dislike this proposal" is growing on me.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
10-04-2015, 15:11
Given this is FIRST's new plan of attack, what happens when FIRST grows even more down the road. In order to keep the 25% they want? There will have to be a third world championship event and then a 4th. By that time they are basically super regionals with the false title of world championship. I don't understand why we would go through this convoluted route instead of just focusing on making super regionals in the first place. It's the same outcome and still keeps the bar high for teams to rise to.
Kevin Leonard
10-04-2015, 15:14
Why only those?
You know, the more time I spend in these topics, the more the argument that "Only big teams strongly dislike this proposal" is growing on me.
That's just the next step- making awesome super-regionals and DCMP's.
Also, I've seen people in these threads with teams I've never heard of that also oppose this change. Anyone I've told about this that isn't directly involved in FIRST is real confused by the proposition as well.
You know, the more time I spend in these topics, the more the argument that "Only big teams strongly dislike this proposal" is growing on me.
There are hundreds of counter examples to this in the other thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=136491).
25% of teams?
Is that even a championship?
Finger Lakes had 45ish teams at the regional. I honestly do not believe that the top 11 teams deserve to go to championships.
Tech Valley had around 36 teams? I think? Not 100% sure. Around there. I do not believe the top 9 seeds deserve champs. We were around 12th, and we definitely didn't have a competitive robot compared to other teams. We kinda just got lucky with alliance performance and schedule.
ASmith1675
10-04-2015, 15:18
I understand the impetus of trying to give as many teams as possible the championship experience. It makes sense to try to inspire as many teams as possible. All of these things are very positive outcomes of the proposed plan.
My fear (though details obviously have not been completely set in stone) is that this change will segregate the country. It would be weird to never even have the chance to interact with half the teams in the country.
Several solutions that have been proposed would help ease my fears. Allowing teams with the means to "opt in" to the other championship would at least allow some of the cross-pollination that the current model offers in droves.
I think the goal should be to move everyone to a district model and allow cross-district play. Districts would continue to feed in to a District Champ (or call it a Super-Regional), of which there would be 10-12. These then qualify teams for the World competition.
This allows team (if they have the means) to travel outside their districts to inspire others. It also allows teams on the borders of the districts to decide to play elsewhere that may be more financially feasible. (Teams in the UP of Michigan can choose to play in Wisconsin or Minnesota, or teams just over the Indiana border from Chicago could choose to play in Illinois).
Moving forward with the proposed model could put us in a situation where you are only able to see team from your district, or from your Championship group. This is the situation I would like to see avoided more than anything. The interaction between teams from different backgrounds and locations does more to propel ideas than anything else in my opinion. This type of interaction is done most effectively in person.
Rachel Lim
10-04-2015, 15:24
I still believe that there are multiple ways to inspire students in FRC. The two main methods can be grouped into what I call the "CD method" and the "non-CD method." I still believe that CD is not always representative of the majority of students in FRC, or even representative most of the time. Proof: my team. I've seen again and again that the logic that works on CD doesn't work on my team. They just disagree with some of the most fundamental ideas that CD builds on--specifically that success and learning from those more successful is the basis of inspiration. They're not wrong; they're just different.
This new champs structure is aimed at students like them, who just want to have a chance to compete more. It's aimed at teams who want to know that they did something right. It's aimed at everyone who isn't on CD, who isn't as obsessed about it, but who still could be inspired by it.
I don't like this at all. I wouldn't find it inspiring to get to champs just because the bar was lowered, I would feel like we didn't deserve to go there. But as I said before, most people would disagree with me and I know many other students on my team who would. Most people just want the opportunity to get to champs, something they'll never get otherwise. They want to say that "we made it to world championships." FIRST wants to give them that.
But there are also people who want to have that top goal to push towards. They want to keep the competition which pushes us all to do our best and strive for more the next year, because without the competition what is FRC? Without winners, there is no competition. I truly believe FIRST wants to give us this too. But there's another very large group of people who don't care about this.
I'm just sad there isn't a middle ground between both groups. FIRST had to pick between bringing the bottom up while keeping the top, and lowering the top while bringing the bottom up more. They picked between district champs / super regionals and keeping champs, and splitting champs. I'm still disappointed in the choice that they made.
jman4747
10-04-2015, 15:27
While I do get what people mean by "half of the country" you never really were playing the whole thing anyway. Also not just U.S. teams out there FYI. Just because 25% of the teams play doesn't denounce the winning 4 teams per event. In fact being the 1% of 400 other teams should be very rewarding.
microbuns
10-04-2015, 15:27
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.
As am I. As long as this is implemented and run properly, I'd be quite content with this change.
MrTechCenter
10-04-2015, 15:33
I think FIRST is really missing one of the key elements of the entire FIRST program here. This blog post made it clear that they want to inspire lower-tier teams by letting them come to Champs, but is that really going to do the job when your team was just given a golden ticket? I think it's much more rewarding to inspire teams in other ways, so that their first trip to Champs (when they've earned it) is a much greater feeling. If teams are just going to get off the waitlist, wouldn't that instill some kind of mentality where a team would just wait a few years until the next time they can get in off the waitlist?
One of the key parts of FIRST is preparing students for the real world. In the real world, you don't get handouts. You have to earn your way to the top. Sure, if you got a little taste of "how the other half lives" you'd probably want to experience it again, right? And you'd probably be willing to work a little harder to get there, right? Sure, in some cases this is probably true. But I've seen teams that went to champs one year tank hard the next. That's just the way it is, and we can try to change it as a community, but this isn't the way.
Stop making champs less inspirational, and work on making DCMP's and Super Regionals more inspiring.
This!
If Frank doesn't think that other events anrt inspirational enough fix that!
Also if Frank really wants to show the greatness of champs to the students of FRC make the webcasts better! Show the great pits, broadcast the workshops, show off FTC and FLL, etc... Make it a show that FRC kids/parents/sponsors want to see and will be awed by not just another regional webcast.
Dunngeon
10-04-2015, 15:36
I like the idea of turning the first event into a super-regional and the second one into the actual world championship. The biggest problem is that the teams that qualify for champs from that super-regional now have a week to arrange plans for worlds.
The biggest issue isn't the planning, it's the travel cost. Teams from PNW and NE would all have to pay two airfares per traveling student per season (if they qualify), plus district events travel. That's quite a bit more money than the current DCMP -> worlds setup that the districts have.
jman4747
10-04-2015, 15:37
I think FIRST is really missing one of the key elements of the entire FIRST program here. This blog post made it clear that they want to inspire lower-tier teams by letting them come to Champs, but is that really going to do the job when your team was just given a golden ticket? I think it's much more rewarding to inspire teams in other ways, so that their first trip to Champs (when they've earned it) is a much greater feeling. If teams are just going to get off the waitlist, wouldn't that instill some kind of mentality where a team would just wait a few years until the next time they can get in off the waitlist?
One of the key parts of FIRST is preparing students for the real world. In the real world, you don't get handouts. You have to earn your way to the top. Sure, if you got a little taste of "how the other half lives" you'd probably want to experience it again, right? And you'd probably be willing to work a little harder to get there, right? Sure, in some cases this is probably true. But I've seen teams that went to champs one year tank hard the next. That's just the way it is, and we can try to change it as a community, but this isn't the way.
Charley seemed happy with his.
Meanwhile you will still have to win a regional or district championship or get a wait list spot to go so how is it any easier than 2014?
I also take offence to the wait list bashing and from now on you can go ahead and call me out specifically if you want to continue denouncing wait listed teams.
audietron
10-04-2015, 15:39
Sure, there is value in more teams going to the the championship event, but at what cost? Is paying to go to Detroit to see 400 boxes on wheels drive around in circles any more inspirational than driving to your DCMP to be a part of a higher caliber event?
You can make an argument that the teams we are trying to introduce to CMP wouldn't exist without the drive of a group of mentors, volunteers, and sponsors who have made things like easy to use control systems and kit drive bases possible. The people directly involved in building up FRC love FIRST because it's not only a way to positively impact and inspire students, but also a way to participate in a really cool competition. The drive to be the best has driven many of the innovations that has allowed FRC to be what it is today. If you take that goal away, what is there to strive for? Who wants to be a part of a competition where everyone is a winner?
I am just pointing out the facts. I don't agree with the decision to split worlds. Keeping it at district champs then worlds is a good solution that has its flaws as well but is better in my opinion than 2 "world" champs.
I also believe that splitting up champs and allowing more teams does not mean there will be a bunch of box on wheels at champs. They still have to be good to win a regional or get enough points in districts. There are 2 polor opposites at the moment, one where people are all about the competition and the other (FIRST) who believe that inspiration comes from participating and nothing more. There has to be some sort of middle ground.
Dunngeon
10-04-2015, 15:45
Charley seemed happy with his.
Meanwhile you will still have to win a regional or district championship or get a wait list spot to go so how is it any easier than 2014?
Because there are more slots. Regionals won't see a big increase in the number they send because it's set. Districts and Wildcards will.
This year, about 9-10 of the teams that qualified to worlds from the PNW weren't picked to be part of an elims alliance at DCMP. Last year, we were 8th alliance captain and we barely qualified (I know there are other cases, but just making the point) More slots = Easier qualification.
Also, wildcards at worlds this year are making up quite a large percentage of the attending teams... More so than in years past.
martin417
10-04-2015, 15:48
Ill just leave this here.. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p7c1HDUHlJo#t=59)..
I also believe that splitting up champs and allowing more teams does not mean there will be a bunch of box on wheels at champs. They still have to be good to win a regional or get enough points in districts.
Not necessarily...there were 200 teams let in off the waitlist this year. Presumably that number goes up in 2017 and future years, if we have 2 championships with 600 teams each.
audietron
10-04-2015, 16:04
Not necessarily...there were 200 teams let in off the waitlist this year. Presumably that number goes up in 2017 and future years, if we have 2 championships with 600 teams each.
In this case I agree that there is a big issue. I would at least hope that they would allow finalist captains or engineering excellence winners to qualify. Based on the intent though I don't see that being the case.
Chris is me
10-04-2015, 16:07
Lots of people are proposing a solution along the lines of District/Regionals ->> DCMP/Super Regionals ->> World Champs, and making the second tier of events closer to world championship production and event quality. I think this is the natural way for things to grow, and it could be very inspiring indeed.
The main problem everyone brings up in response is - well, then 400 teams are all trying to get to champs on one or two week's notice. Valid problem, but there's a solution to that. It's not a perfect solution, but it actually would fix a bunch of different problems with scheduling champs, avoiding AP testing season, avoiding Easter, avoiding Vex Champs, fitting in more and more regionals...
Is there any reason we can't have champs in the early summer? Last week of May, first week of June, that area. Just take a month off between DCMP and CMP, for the teams that can go? Some schools would have issues with it, I know, but many academic and athletic competitions have their national competitions late, sometimes even after the school year ends, so it's not completely impossible.
What does this do? It means that there's time between Districts and Super Regionals to schedule travel plans. Maybe districts could be a little bigger as a result, giving us a handful of events (like, 12 - 14) sprinkled across the country. 30 teams from each can advance, for a 360 - 420 team World Champs. And there would be time between the Super Regionals and World Champs for teams to get plans in order as well.
I know some teams wouldn't be able to do this, yes. But the intention of the three tier idea everyone is kicking around is that the second tier wouldn't be just some other regional event. It would be itself a championship - a privilege to qualify, worth it just to be there, etc. The idea is that you're getting most of the experience of an early 2000s championship at tier 2, and that tier 2 would complete the season positively for many middle tier teams.
Navid Shafa
10-04-2015, 16:19
This year, about 9-10 of the teams that qualified to worlds from the PNW weren't picked to be part of an elims alliance at DCMP.
As one of these teams, in fact 31st out of 31 PNW slots (before waitlist candidates), I can say I agree. While we had a good enough robot and enough practice to win a district, we weren't as competitive as the top tier at the DCMP.
Our goal as a team, was to make it to world's in this transition year. It feels amazing and the kids are proud, because they know we worked hard to earn it. We want to be competitive at Saint Louis, we want to do our best to contribute in Qualification Matches, but most importantly we want to build a team.
I want my students to strive to be better, to learn more and want more. Being able to show them robots and teams that continue to inspire me allows me to do that. Without the risk of failure or more importantly a lofty goal to reach, how can I expect them to be Inspired to grow.
Teams don't want a banner or a championship slot handed to them, they want to earn it. Winning a match in the finals is not just a victory in the moment, it's being rewarded for all the hard work we put in during the season and up until then at the event.
You want to inspire? Give people all the examples they can get, teach them, and reward them the right amount for the time and effort they put in. That's inspiring.
Tottanka
10-04-2015, 16:24
Am i the only one who thinks that 25% is ridiculously high?
With all due respect, only the best should attend Champs. (and i'm saying that as someone who is not from a "best" team).
You want to inspire more teams - make regionals more inspiring, like they are in Israel. Also - have a good quality webcast, like an ESPN thing, with reporters going between pits and visiting teams getting close ups on robots or something.
Also, from my experience, the teams who work the hardest, usually perform the best and will eventually attend champs, even if its only 10% of the teams. Making it into the top 10% is really mostly about working your bo(u)tts off...
Dear Frank,
Thank you for listening at this point. However, I think many people would appreciate it if you didn't just listen now, you explained. Why was this solution chosen? How was the problem(s) it solved defined? What other options were considered? What was done to assess the best interests of teams? Who was consulted, what feedback was taken? Why was this process kept secret until after venues and dates were set? Is anything in the press release alterable? How can this model scale long-term? What are the future plans/alternatives?
In particular, what's the reasoning behind splitting Worlds to make two half-world inspiring events, rather than focusing on making the already planned/created next-tier events more inspiring? With this change slated for the FRC district conversion goal date (2017), why not up the quality of DCMPs (and the J/FLL and FTC equivalents) to something approaching what is now going to be Half-Worlds?
I'm cross-posting this to his Blog comments.
As one of these teams, in fact 31st out of 31 PNW slots (before waitlist candidates), I can say I agree. While we had a good enough robot and enough practice to win a district, we weren't as competitive as the top tier at the DCMP.
Our goal as a team, was to make it to world's in this transition year. It feels amazing and the kids are proud, because they know we worked hard to earn it. We want to be competitive at Saint Louis, we want to do our best to contribute in Qualification Matches, but most importantly we want to build a team.
I want my students to strive to be better, to learn more and want more. Being able to show them robots and teams that continue to inspire me allows me to do that. Without the risk of failure or more importantly a lofty goal to reach, how can I expect them to be Inspired to grow.
Teams don't want a banner or a championship slot handed to them, they want to earn it. Winning a match in the finals is not just a victory in the moment, it's being rewarded for all the hard work we put in during the season and up until then at the event.
You want to inspire? Give people all the examples they can get, teach them, and reward them the right amount for the time and effort they put in. That's inspiring.
This right here. Now, there may be teams (or maybe just people in teams) that just want to go, they don't care about competing, they just want to be there. And that is fine. But, it would feel so much better earning the spot based on work, like Navid said.
Our team missed the cutoff by about 5 spots, and personally, i dont mind, we cant afford it anyway. But i feel that DCMPs were super inspiring, and that is something everyone should have.
An idea to try and fix this, instead of DCMPs, why not have the Super Regionals as a "Psudeo-DCMP?" It would reduce the burnout, and you would not need to bump the CMP much, if any, depending on the schedules of the regionals. (i know this has been said before, but i want to bring it up again.)
Also, someone talked about the FLL, only .0034%(?) of teams get to go to CMPs, why do we have 25%? why not more 10%? Once most of FRC goes to districts, everyone will have a CMP like feel, but in a smaller area. We dont need 800+ championship, thats just too many teams. And with less teams, we dont need two arenas.
Alan Anderson
10-04-2015, 16:46
With all due respect, only the best should attend Champs.
I'm okay with the proposal that only the best should compete at the Championship event. But my belief is that the more teams who can attend, the better. Seeing those "best" teams at work, going to the conference presentations, volunteering as field crew and crowd control and pit admin assistant and any of a hundred possibilities.... If you can get your team there, you should do it.
Matt_Boehm_329
10-04-2015, 16:53
I'm okay with the proposal that only the best should compete at the Championship event. But my belief is that the more teams who can attend, the better. Seeing those "best" teams at work, going to the conference presentations, volunteering as field crew and crowd control and pit admin assistant and any of a hundred possibilities.... If you can get your team there, you should do it.
I would think it would be hard to get funding or school support to attend an event the team was not competing at.
Tottanka
10-04-2015, 17:17
I'm okay with the proposal that only the best should compete at the Championship event. But my belief is that the more teams who can attend, the better. Seeing those "best" teams at work, going to the conference presentations, volunteering as field crew and crowd control and pit admin assistant and any of a hundred possibilities.... If you can get your team there, you should do it.
I stand corrected, that's what i meant.
XaulZan11
10-04-2015, 17:25
I would think it would be hard to get funding or school support to attend an event the team was not competing at.
What if FIRST provided a reduction in registration fees the following year for every student who volunteers at the championship? It could be expensive, but more students get the experience the championship and that helps with the lack of volunteers.
What if FIRST provided a reduction in registration fees the following year for every student who volunteers at the championship? It could be expensive, but more students get the experience the championship and that helps with the lack of volunteers.
Money won't help if students won't be able to get (more) time off from school or school-affiliated teams won't be able to get permission to travel to an event they're not competing at.
waialua359
10-04-2015, 17:52
Money won't help if students won't be able to get (more) time off from school or school-affiliated teams won't be able to get permission to travel to an event they're not competing at.
Totally agree.
I suspect that most schools would not allow students or programs to pay people to attend the championships if their team didnt qualify for the event, especially if they live in Hawaii and the event is in st. louis/houston/detroit.
Maybe I'm remembering wrong (it happens...), but it wasn't that long ago that ANY veteran team could simply sign up to go to Champs. I don't remember a lot of complaints about that. There have always been lots of robots at Champs that do not embody "world class" engineering, do not score in the top 10% at their local events, etc. Champs IS about "more than robots" and IMVHO, it should stay that way.
(When we went to Champs in 2010, we certainly didn't have a "world class" robot - we got there by winning the EI award at regionals. We competed, we contributed to our alliances - our robot was not bad, but not "Einstein material" by a long shot. Attending that Championship event was the most inspiring thing that happened to our team for a long time. It was what got me and several other mentors involved, and prompted us to start a non-profit organization to support all robotics on our island. It got many, many students involved in our team for the first time. Seeing what Miss Daisy had done showed us that the CA was not just something we had to do because of the NASA grant, but so much more!)
Back then, and before, there were fewer teams in FRC, and I don't know what percentage of them went to Champs, but it definitely wasn't only the "cream of the crop" in terms of robot performance or engineering. Even our little "Home Depot" robot finished in the solid middle of our division. And no one was complaining about the field being full of "boxes on wheels" then!
I just don't get the outrage over (a whopping) 25% of teams getting to go to Champs. 75% still won't get to go - and I doubt the 25% will include that many more "bad" robots than currently go to Champs. There are just a whole lot MORE "decent" (but admittedly not "world crushing") robots out there now that there are so many more teams, and I see nothing wrong with letting a few more of them get inspired.
Just curious, what percentage of teams attended Champs in 2008? 2009? 2010? 2011? Based on what I've seen at our regional over the past few years, if twice as many teams attended Champs this year as in 2010, the "worst" robot/team* attending in 2015 would still be "better" than the worst in 2010. Even the rookie winners now are competitive, and back then, I'm not sure that was always, or even often, so.
While I can see that folks might get annoyed about there no longer being "one world champion" alliance (which FIRST seems to be considering remedying), the actual location of the events (which may be the result of factors beyond their control and in any event, probably can't be changed now, and couldn't please everyone anyway), and the inability to 'hob nob' with ALL of the teams from around the world, I just don't see the outrage about allowing 800 teams, or 25%, to attend a Championship event. OTOH, I have no problem with calling it a super-regional if you like, and then having another event for only the "super elite" to attend (which should be free, in terms of entry fee and robot shipping, with subsidized housing, lots of free food, and maybe transportation - talk about EARNING something! THAT would inspire my team to really work hard!!).
*I'm talking about engineering and scoring performance of the robot and drivers, but I think the same would hold true for just about ANY measure of a team's "ability" - the quality of their CA efforts and presentation, their "team imagery," scouting - except maybe GP, which seems to have been fairly consistent (and high).
Tottanka
10-04-2015, 18:02
Maybe I'm remembering wrong (it happens...), but it wasn't that long ago that ANY veteran team could simply sign up to go to Champs. I don't remember a lot of complaints about that. There have always been lots of robots at Champs that do not embody "world class" engineering, do not score in the top 10% at their local events, etc. Champs IS about "more than robots" and IMVHO, it should stay that way.
(When we went to Champs in 2010, we certainly didn't have a "world class" robot - we got there by winning the EI award at regionals. We competed, we contributed to our alliances - our robot was not bad, but not "Einstein material" by a long shot. Attending that Championship event was the most inspiring thing that happened to our team for a long time. It was what got me and several other mentors involved, and prompted us to start a non-profit organization to support all robotics on our island. It got many, many students involved in our team for the first time. Seeing what Miss Daisy had done showed us that the CA was not just something we had to do because of the NASA grant, but so much more!)
Back then, and before, there were fewer teams in FRC, and I don't know what percentage of them went to Champs, but it definitely wasn't only the "cream of the crop" in terms of robot performance or engineering. Even our little "Home Depot" robot finished in the solid middle of our division. And no one was complaining about the field being full of "boxes on wheels" then!
I just don't get the outrage over (a whopping) 25% of teams getting to go to Champs. 75% still won't get to go - and I doubt the 25% will include that many more "bad" robots than currently go to Champs. There are just a whole lot MORE "decent" (but admittedly not "world crushing") robots out there now that there are so many more teams, and I see nothing wrong with letting a few more of them get inspired.
Just curious, what percentage of teams attended Champs in 2008? 2009? 2010? 2011? Based on what I've seen at our regional over the past few years, if twice as many teams attended Champs this year as in 2010, the "worst" robot/team* attending in 2015 would still be "better" than the worst in 2010. Even the rookie winners now are competitive, and back then, I'm not sure that was always, or even often, so.
While I can see that folks might get annoyed about there no longer being "one world champion" alliance (which FIRST seems to be considering remedying), the actual location of the events (which may be the result of factors beyond their control and in any event, probably can't be changed now, and couldn't please everyone anyway), and the inability to 'hob nob' with ALL of the teams from around the world, I just don't see the outrage about allowing 800 teams, or 25%, to attend a Championship event. OTOH, I have no problem with calling it a super-regional if you like, and then having another event for only the "super elite" to attend (which should be free, in terms of entry fee and robot shipping, with subsidized housing, lots of free food, and maybe transportation - talk about EARNING something! THAT would inspire my team to really work hard!!).
*I'm talking about engineering and scoring performance of the robot and drivers, but I think the same would hold true for just about ANY measure of a team's "ability" - the quality of their CA efforts and presentation, their "team imagery," scouting - except maybe GP, which seems to have been fairly consistent (and high).
If you won EI, you were a world class team, thats good enough for inspiration at this event.
Also, the percentage is around 20% for years now. Those (me included) who advocate to lower the percentage don't to it because we want less teams in champs. We claim it because FIRST makes 2 championships only in order to keep that percentage of championships attendance. In my opinion, there's no need to keep that.
The main problem with 2 events is not the fact that you have an undecided world champion, nobody cares about that. The problem is that such event will be far less inspiring. I for one am really really waiting to see this year's robots of 148,254 and 1114 (just to name a few) going head to head. That inspires me, and is what keeps me pushing my team forward. Not having this level of competition will hurt how FIRST inspires people.
Dear Frank,
Thank you for listening at this point. However, I think many people would appreciate it if you didn't just listen now, you explained. Why was this solution chosen? How was the problem(s) it solved defined? What other options were considered? What was done to assess the best interests of teams? Who was consulted, what feedback was taken? Why was this process kept secret until after venues and dates were set? Is anything in the press release alterable? How can this model scale long-term? What are the future plans/alternatives?
... ^^^^
This
Additionally (Frank), for the benefit of everyone concerned about the announced Championship plans, wouldn't it be nice if someone with the authority to do so (and that's not all the folks waving their personal opinions around like six-shooters), both (re)stated and unambiguously ranked by importance, the true purposes/goals of the event the FIRST web site home page graphics call the FIRST Championship?
On the other side of the coin:
Many people writing here on Chief Delphi seem to want to argue with FIRST about the Championship's purpose.
Until everyone gets that bickering out of their systems, and decides to focus on helping accomplish the official, prioritized list of reasons for holding the FIRST Championship (see above), there will be a lot of wasted posts here and elsewhere.
If you disagree with FIRST's objectives/reasons for holding a Championship, or if you want FIRST to shuffle the importance they attach to those objectives, that's fine; but that is also a different question/task than the one Frank put in front of you in his blog post.
Blake
If you won EI, you were a world class team, thats good enough for inspiration at this event.
Then "World Class" was a LOT different from what it is now. (And I do think it was. That was part of my point. Some are worried about standards being lowered, but we have to remember, they have been going up steadily over time. This is just like a "market correction" - some may say needed or desirable, some may disagree.)
Andrew Lawrence
10-04-2015, 18:16
I'm okay with the proposal that only the best should compete at the Championship event. But my belief is that the more teams who can attend, the better. Seeing those "best" teams at work, going to the conference presentations, volunteering as field crew and crowd control and pit admin assistant and any of a hundred possibilities.... If you can get your team there, you should do it.
I've always entertained the idea of separating the teams who qualify. If FIRST chooses to inspire more students by inviting more teams to the championship and not make higher quality district championships, why not have all teams who qualified via success in the robot game (ie. winning/wildcards) compete in the robot game, have all those who qualified via chairmans/engineering inspiration compete in the outreach game, and find a way to have a separate group for the waitlist teams (or figure out how to determine which ones compete where via some kind of points system). It would allow more students to be inspired at championships without lessening the value of any individual area.
Is this ideal? Far from it. I wouldn't even want it. A single, smaller championship event with more celebrated district championships would solve all these problems in a much more effective manner. But if FIRST is insistent on using the championship event(s) to be their main method of inspiration, then this unfortunate idea of segregation becomes a more viable reality.
While there are no perfect solutions, here are my thoughts…
Call the first of the two “championships” the “FIRST Festival” and qualify as many teams as possible (bigger is better). While still a competition, this event would be structured as a great big party with focus on celebration of achievement, changing culture and inspiration. Hall of Fame teams would have automatic invite, championship chairman’s award would be awarded here, plenty of great teams from across the world will make it loud. Bring a film crew and capture the energy, team stories, action, etc. Provide a suitable award for the winners of the competition like the next year’s fees paid, etc.
Call the second of the two “championships” the “FIRST World Championships” and only qualify the best 240 teams from around the world (there are plenty of statisticians on here that can provide the ranking criteria from year to year). Instead of casting it as a big party, fill it will pomp and circumstance. Have 4 divisions of 60 teams; keep it smaller to provide as many qualification matches as possible. Given the smaller size and selection criteria this should be an extremely high performance event so broadcast the World Championships on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPNUNameIt… Use the massaged footage from the “FIRST Festival” to fill in the natural pauses in competition. And we can anoint the “Champions of the World”.
If FIRST Festival is around 600 teams and FIRST Word Championships is around 240, you still end up with 840 with plenty of inspiration and meaningful competition.
Fielding S.
10-04-2015, 18:21
I agree. I'm sorry but I just cringe every time when I hear; "It's not about the robots"
Championship should be a place for the best teams and robots. If other events aren't inspiring enough then work on that.
The Varsity "Sport" of the Mind needs to have a Championship that follows the model of other sports. The teams in the Championship earn their way there. The teams not there work hard and try to get better so they can be there one day. Teams that aren't good enough, they don't get to go. I'm sorry but that's real life. That's the mindset that needs to be propagated in my opinion.
Yup.
Also, imagine this:
Detroit = waitlist teams
Houston = Regional/District qualifiers, Chairman's winners, EI, etc.
I've always entertained the idea of separating the teams who qualify. If FIRST chooses to inspire more students by inviting more teams to the championship and not make higher quality district championships, why not have all teams who qualified via success in the robot game (ie. winning/wildcards) compete in the robot game, have all those who qualified via chairmans/engineering inspiration compete in the outreach game, and find a way to have a separate group for the waitlist teams (or figure out how to determine which ones compete where via some kind of points system). It would allow more students to be inspired at championships without lessening the value of any individual area.
Is this ideal? Far from it. I wouldn't even want it. A single, smaller championship event with more celebrated district championships would solve all these problems in a much more effective manner. But if FIRST is insistent on using the championship event(s) to be their main method of inspiration, then this unfortunate idea of segregation becomes a more viable reality.That will permanently place the Chairman's/EI winners on a far lower level than the robot game winners. If you don't get to go to the "real championships", then the message FIRST is sending is that the Chairman's award is worth very slightly more than, say, the Team Spirit Award.
Rachel Lim
10-04-2015, 18:26
Just curious, what percentage of teams attended Champs in 2008? 2009? 2010? 2011?
I thought it was interesting to see how much of an effect the additional 200 teams at champs made this year (brought us back to 2009-2010 percentages), so I did it for 2008-2015 using TBA rankings per division times 4 as the number of teams at champs, and Wikipedia for the number of teams each year:
2008: 22.65%, 84, 85, 85 and 86 teams/division = 340 teams at champs, 1501 teams total
2009: 20.99%, 86, 87, 87, and 88 teams/division = 348 teams at champs, 1677 teams total
2010: 18.99%, 86 teams/division = 344 teams at champs, 1811 teams total
2011: 16.96%, 88 teams/division = 351 teams at champs, 2075 teams total
2012: 17.07%, 100 teams/division = 400 teams at champs, 2343 teams total
2013: 15.84%, 100 teams/division = 400 teams at champs, 2524 teams total
2014: 14.70%, 100 teams/division = 400 teams at champs, 2720 teams total
2015: 20.00%, 75 teams/division = 600 teams at champs, 3000 teams total
Graph (percentage of teams at champs by year):
18820
To get back above 25%, I had to go back 8 years:
2007: 26.36%, 86 teams/division = 344 teams at champs, 1305 teams total
^^^^
This
Additionally (Frank), for the benefit of everyone concerned about the announced Championship plans, wouldn't it be nice if someone with the authority to do so (and that's not all the folks waving their personal opinions around like six-shooters), both (re)stated and unambiguously ranked by importance, the true purposes/goals of the event the FIRST web site home page graphics call the FIRST Championship?
On the other side of the coin:
Many people writing here on Chief Delphi seem to want to argue with FIRST about the Championship's purpose.
Until everyone gets that bickering out of their systems, and decides to focus on helping accomplish the official, prioritized list of reasons for holding the FIRST Championship (see above), there will be a lot of wasted posts here and elsewhere.
If you disagree with FIRST's objectives/reasons for holding a Championship, or if you want FIRST to shuffle the importance they attach to those objectives, that's fine; but that is also a different question/task than the one Frank put in front of you in his blog post.
BlakeI agree, but I think there's an additional layer in there. Once HQ publishes this list of objectives/reasons for championships, there's still going to be reasonable disagreement about whether or not this solution (best) achieves their stated goals. People from all sides (include HQ) can have reasonable anecdotes and beliefs about what achieves those goals (Inspiration and Recognition, as Frank quotes, though hopefully with more detail). But without a concerted effort to asses this beforehand, it's really just a blind shot either way.
... I'm sorry but I just cringe every time when I hear; "It's not about the robots" ...
Do you cringe when Woodie says "The robot is just the campfire we gather around." (slightly paraphrased, I think, but close enough)?
When Woodie talks about FIRST's purpose and methods, I usually pay attention; and I rarely (never?) cringe.
Blake
Andrew Lawrence
10-04-2015, 18:40
That will permanently place the Chairman's/EI winners on a far lower level than the robot game winners. If you don't get to go to the "real championships", then the message FIRST is sending is that the Chairman's award is worth very slightly more than, say, the Team Spirit Award.
Everyone would go to the same championship event(s). They just wouldn't all compete in the same game (think of it like the Olympics - the polo team is at the same big event as the curling team, but the polo team isn't competing in curling). If there is any depreciation in the value of the award (which I doubt there would be), it would only be further evidence that the idea of the championship event(s) being the main source of inspiration is a terrible one.
Brandon_L
10-04-2015, 18:43
This is our goal – to have Championships at which, no matter how well a team’s robot does on the field..
If that's what you want, fine. But don't kid us and call it a championship.
Jean Tenca
10-04-2015, 18:46
The one thing I keep wondering is: Why does a team have to compete at Championships to be inspired at Championships? This is FIRST's logic and I think it's wrong.
There were years where my team decided to go to Worlds regardless of whether or not we qualified. In my opinion, the most valuable thing a team could do is spend their time walking around the pits, meeting teams, inspecting the details of good robots, and watching some of the greatest robots in the world play. If your robot is competing, you don't have time to really go around and absorb anything from other teams. Having more non-competing teams spectating would also add a lot to the energy of the event.
I agree with FIRST that Championships inspire teams and improve them, but I don't think that competing at Championships is more important than attending Championships.
Kevin Sevcik
10-04-2015, 18:49
To all the people griping that 25% of teams attending is too high, I'm going to repeat something I posted in the other thread:
2003 Champs had 291 teams out of 787 total. That's 37%. If 25% isn't a "real" World Champs, should we be calling 65, 111, and 469 and revoking their 2003 World Champs banners?
In case anyone is curious:
2004: 31%
2005: 34%
2006: 30%
2007: 26%
2008: 23%
2009: 21%
2010: 19%
2011: 17%
2012: 17%
There's no hard data pre-2003 because that's pre-TIMS, but I can confidently say that Nationals in 1998 had nearly every team in FRC, and nearly every team competing in the most ludicrous double elimination playoff you've ever seen. I'm pretty sure Nats/Champs maintained the >25% participation rate between 1998 and 2003.
Which is all to say that >25% participation in Champs was the case for most of FRC history. So unless teams have gotten much worse on average, there were an awful lot of Champs held with the equivalent of 800 teams, and I don't think they were particularly terrible. Aside from 2003, which was terrible for unrelated reasons.
Other points:
A single 800 team Mega-Champs sounds pretty ridiculous. Especially since we haven't seen how a 600 team Mega-Champs works. How about we wait a few weeks before we decide that's a good idea?
I'm curious what percentage of the 400/600 teams at Champs you people actually interact with. I know when I'm there, the vast majority of teams I interact with are in my Division. How likely is it you'll even notice on a day-to-day basis that you're at a Champs with only half the world there?
I'm personally a supporter of the idea of getting more teams the Champs experience. I hear a lot of people in the thread declaring how getting to Champs once motivated them to do it again. But as the program grows and a single Champs dwindles to the top 10% of all teams, how many teams are ever going to have that experience and develop that drive to get to Champs?
To the objections that we should be focusing instead on DCMPs and Super Regionals: Would it make you feel better if we just called Detroit and Houston Super Regionals instead? If FIRST is serious about keeping "Champs" attendance in the 20-25% range, then they'll have to roll out more and more of these, and eventually they'll just morph into defacto Super Regionals/Regional Champs. And at that point there will probably be enough teams to funnel into a reincarnated World Champs. My read on the whole thing is this is a transitional period while we don't have enough teams to justify/support the Super-Regional -> WCMP model.
Finally, I really hope the senior FIRST leadership brings their FRC(lothing) gear to that town hall. And for the love of all that's good, I hope everyone can keep things civil.
JohnSchneider
10-04-2015, 19:14
To the objections that we should be focusing instead on DCMPs and Super Regionals: Would it make you feel better if we just called Detroit and Houston Super Regionals instead? If FIRST is serious about keeping "Champs" attendance in the 20-25% range, then they'll have to roll out more and more of these, and eventually they'll just morph into defacto Super Regionals/Regional Champs. And at that point there will probably be enough teams to funnel into a reincarnated World Champs. My read on the whole thing is this is a transitional period while we don't have enough teams to justify/support the Super-Regional -> WCMP model.
Why not just start the super regional model in 2017, under 1 championship. They're putting the cart before the horse.
BrennanB
10-04-2015, 19:16
The one thing I keep wondering is: Why does a team have to compete at Championships to be inspired at Championships? This is FIRST's logic and I think it's wrong.
(Only views on myself, not my team or it's members)
This. You don't need to make world championships blah for a non-existent problem of %age of teams qualifying. (As seen with FLL who has almost tripled in size since 2007, and has seen a 0% increase in championship spots in the last 9 years.) FLL is doing fine. That being said, their qualification needs to be fixed.
For me it's not about non-elite teams making it to worlds, and it never will be. Sure we have all been there with those perhaps, less sophisticated robots on the field. Quite honestly qualifying for worlds gives them a huge (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1462605&postcount=32) inspiration boost that can lead to greater success in the future. Why are they inspired to up their game? Because they just had a taste of the best teams in the world. Splitting champs makes this untrue, it's just "some of the teams" which I believe strongly that if you asked most of those teams in that linked post that were so incredibly inspired and changed, the wins, the actual getting to the event is cheapened. These teams were excited and inspired because they got to play with the best of the best. Not the sorta-kinda best of the best.
Not having the entire world compete at one event make me sad. It's not about the two winners playing it off. It's about championships atmosphere which can't be replicated anywhere else. That feel will be forever lost. Not to say that qualifying for one of the champs events won't be inspiring... It's just not even close to as inspiring as it would have been.
I'm curious what percentage of the 400/600 teams at Champs you people actually interact with. I know when I'm there, the vast majority of teams I interact with are in my Division. How likely is it you'll even notice on a day-to-day basis that you're at a Champs with only half the world there?
For me it's once again, the atmosphere. Talk to a random team, figure out they are from the other side of the continent. It's a place where the entire community comes together.
You know what! Lets just make the Olympics two events! Nobody will notice that half the world is missing! We can make more athletes dreams a reality! Everyone will be happy! Plenty of cities want to host! North America, you never get to play Asia, have fun!
No. It completely destroys what makes it special.
Kevin Sevcik
10-04-2015, 19:21
Why not just start the super regional model in 2017, under 1 championship. They're putting the cart before the horse.You'd have to bring that up at the Town Hall, but I'm assuming the reasoning is something along the lines of Super Regionals needing to be 100-200 team events given the current program size. Given the rhetoric about the inspiration of Champs, I suspect they don't think these smaller events are going to fit in the same inspirational role as a larger Champs event.
If people are concerned about dual Champs not being inspiring because they won't see teams from everywhere, I would think Super Regionals would be even less inspiring and less like a monolithic Champs.
Sean Raia
10-04-2015, 19:23
I thought the idea mentioned in a previous thread, of turning one venue into the FIRST Festival (essentially more teams can qualify, rookies go here, other FIRST leagues compete, etc.) and the other into the FRC World Championship (less teams, higher standard) would be a fine way to do it.
Sure they already booked two venues, but they don't both need to be identical.
Splitting champs makes this untrue, it's just "some of the teams" which I believe strongly that if you asked any[/U] of those teams in that linked post that were so incredibly inspired and changed, the wins, the actual getting to the event is cheapened. These teams were excited and inspired because they got to play with the best of the best. Not the sorta-kinda best of the best.
Frankly, many the teams that inspired our team the most were not "the best of the best" - they were just other teams that had maybe done more with resources similar to ours, that had really, really nice members, that had come up with a unique solution to a particular problem, etc.
I will tell you that we will gladly take a spot at a "semi-championship" with the "best" from only half the world, over not getting to go at all to a "championship" where there would be a handful more of the "best of the best". Also, for the teams that will really miss building relationships with specific teams from the "other side," or feel they benefit that much more from the experience of meeting teams from a broader region (which I can totally understand - it was really cool having MORT and 610 at our regional this year, and I can see how many teams from 'back east' would really enjoy getting to meet the teams from Taiwan, Japan, Australia, etc., which probably wouldn't happen with the "semi-champs" arrangement as currently proposed), I like the "swap" idea. Is there any downside to allowing teams to swap like that?
iVanDuzer
10-04-2015, 19:30
This!
If Frank doesn't think that other events anrt inspirational enough fix that!
Also if Frank really wants to show the greatness of champs to the students of FRC make the webcasts better! Show the great pits, broadcast the workshops, show off FTC and FLL, etc... Make it a show that FRC kids/parents/sponsors want to see and will be awed by not just another regional webcast.
My thoughts exactly. (http://www.reddit.com/r/FRC/comments/32352y/first_wants_to_make_the_championship_events_super/)
It's shocking (and a touch embarrassing) that MSC had ESPN broadcast their elimination matches (and do a really, really good job of it) for a couple years, but that FIRST, with all its power and ability to produce documentaries and make strong partnerships with celebrities and huge companies, can't do the same.
Hey Frank et al, even if you accomplish your goal of 25% of FRC teams at the Championships, there are still the 75% of teams that miss out every year. Why are those 75% of teams forced to watch low-quality webfeeds, and use two or three services to figure out who is playing when?
If your point is that you need to be at Champs to be inspired by Champs, and that the magic happens when you walk across the Dome floor, here's a newsflash: very few members of the teams that are AT Champs get that experience.
efoote868
10-04-2015, 19:35
I thought the idea mentioned in a previous thread, of turning one venue into the FIRST Festival (essentially more teams can qualify, rookies go here, other FIRST leagues compete, etc.) and the other into the FRC World Championship (less teams, higher standard) would be a fine way to do it.
Sure they already booked two venues, but they don't both need to be identical.
If the number one concern is that there won't be a true champion, invite the winners of both events to compete against one another.
If the number one concern is that there won't be a true champion without an additional event, have one championship event be like the NCAA tournament and the other be like the NIT.
If the number one concern doesn't have to do with crowning a true champion, or decreasing the competitiveness of the event, but that the concern is that teams from different parts of North America will never interact, allow teams to indicate their preference when signing up for the event.
FIRST's biggest concern right now is that they cannot find a way to make sure every team is able to go to a FRC championship event within a student's high school career, and I think they're addressing it head on. Best thing we can do as a community is to brainstorm different ways to make it a success.
Kevin Sevcik
10-04-2015, 19:37
Frankly, many the teams that inspired our team the most were not "the best of the best" - they were just other teams that had maybe done more with resources similar to ours, that had really, really nice members, that had come up with a unique solution to a particular problem, etc.
I will tell you that we will gladly take a spot at a "semi-championship" with the "best" from only half the world, over not getting to go at all to a "championship" where there would be a handful more of the "best of the best". Also, for the teams that will really miss building relationships with specific teams from the "other side," or feel they benefit that much more from the experience of meeting teams from a broader region (which I can totally understand - it was really cool having MORT and 610 at our regional this year, and I can see how many teams from 'back east' would really enjoy getting to meet the teams from Taiwan, Japan, Australia, etc., which probably wouldn't happen with the "semi-champs" arrangement as currently proposed), I like the "swap" idea. Is there any downside to allowing teams to swap like that?The main problem I see with the swap idea is if Everyone decides, say, Houston is the premier Champs event and wants to come here. If there's only Detroit teams wanting to head to Houston, it's not likely to fix things. You could probably remedy that by randomizing the swapping, so there's less incentive for everyone to try to swap to one regional, since you don't know if you'll actually wind up with all the star teams.
BrennanB
10-04-2015, 19:38
Frankly, many the teams that inspired our team the most were not "the best of the best" - they were just other teams that had maybe done more with resources similar to ours, that had really, really nice members, that had come up with a unique solution to a particular problem, etc.
I changed my post to most. I still believe from talking to the teams (at least from Canada) that it was competing with so many teams that are "elite" they were motivated to do more and expand their program.
michaelwm
10-04-2015, 21:20
Our team is in it's second rookie year - we have gotten to the semi-finals at every regional but never further, and just last regional, we were the closest to going to the world championship we have ever been. After we lost at our last regional, I was personally devastated. So close, yet we didn't make it. The point is that our team is a middle-lower class team. Going to the world championship is really my dream.
And yet, of the people on our team who have heard this announcement, we all dislike it. Out of the ~100 teams we competed with this year, only 6 made it to the world championship. We desire to go to world's because we want to know we are in the top 6% of FRC teams in the world.
But top 25%? That's an entirely different story. Being 1 in 4 doesn't say "you are a top team". Being 1 in 16 does.
It's not just the "elite" teams, it's teams like ours that want a real championship, not another regional.
The main problem I see with the swap idea is if Everyone decides, say, Houston is the premier Champs event and wants to come here. If there's only Detroit teams wanting to head to Houston, it's not likely to fix things. You could probably remedy that by randomizing the swapping, so there's less incentive for everyone to try to swap to one regional, since you don't know if you'll actually wind up with all the star teams.
I had a similar thought process. You could let teams throw their hat into the "swap" pool and then randomly swap some percentage of those teams. Gives teams a chance to see the other league for a change.
As much as I appreciate you Frank, this does not cut it.
Having a town hall type discussion with input from the FIRST community is what should have happened BEFORE decisions were made. NOW you want our help to make your horrible decision better? Not pleased at all.
And in case you think this is "just" the CD crowd talking, I was at one of the three District Championships all day today and EVERYONE I spoke with was universally against this change and felt disrespected for not being given a chance to weigh in on this prior to a decision. Most of those I spoke with do not even know CD exists.
Our team is in it's second rookie year - we have gotten to the semi-finals at every regional but never further, and just last regional, we were the closest to going to the world championship we have ever been. After we lost at our last regional, I was personally devastated. So close, yet we didn't make it. The point is that our team is a middle-lower class team. Going to the world championship is really my dream.
And yet, of the people on our team who have heard this announcement, we all dislike it. Out of the ~100 teams we competed with this year, only 6 made it to the world championship. We desire to go to world's because we want to know we are in the top 6% of FRC teams in the world.
But top 25%? That's an entirely different story. Being 1 in 4 doesn't say "you are a top team". Being 1 in 16 does.
It's not just the "elite" teams, it's teams like ours that want a real championship, not another regional.
Everyone can have their own goals. I'm sure for many teams, WINNING the championship is their goal. Your team can still have "being in the top 6%" as a goal; how about placing in the top 10 in your championship division? Or top 8? Or being in the top 6% in OPR? Or winning an engineering award (or all 5)? None of this has anything to do with going to Championship (unless, maybe, you get there as the captain of a winning alliance, or maybe the first pick).
How would you feel if you got to Championship as a second pick? I don't think that puts you in the top 6% of teams - I would doubt many would say that the first alliance's 2nd pick is "above" the second alliance captain, regardless of which alliance wins the regional. Ditto for the 3rd captain, if all 6 on the top two alliances go. I don't think that just because 6 teams go to champs, it means they are the "top 6%" in terms of best robot/engineering (or even driving).
Yup.
Also, imagine this:
Detroit = waitlist teams
Houston = Regional/District qualifiers, Chairman's winners, EI, etc.
i feel many will not like this. I personally dont have an opinion, but someone else might.
The one thing I keep wondering is: Why does a team have to compete at Championships to be inspired at Championships?
I think most people feel that is where they were Most inspired. Personally, i (and our team) have never been to a Championship, but being at the District Championship for the first time really inspired our team, and we have a much better grasp on a lot of things that we didn't have last year.
BrennanB
10-04-2015, 23:15
I think most people feel that is where they were Most inspired. Personally, i (and our team) have never been to a Championship, but being at the District Championship for the first time really inspired our team, and we have a much better grasp on a lot of things that we didn't have last year.
This is exactly how it should be. The harder you work for something, the more inspiring it is when you reach it.
evanperryg
11-04-2015, 01:13
Our team is in it's second rookie year - we have gotten to the semi-finals at every regional but never further, and just last regional, we were the closest to going to the world championship we have ever been. After we lost at our last regional, I was personally devastated. So close, yet we didn't make it. The point is that our team is a middle-lower class team. Going to the world championship is really my dream.
And yet, of the people on our team who have heard this announcement, we all dislike it.
Exactly. What makes the championship experience inspiring is the diversity and the massive, electric feeling that builds around it.
In 2013, my team got our first regional win ever playing defense for the two best cyclers at the Wisconsin regional. We couldn't do anything for our first few quals, and still got picked. In other words, we got lucky, but it was still the start of something really special. By our next event, we were shooting more accurately, and into the high goal, and placed second at the event, ahead of one of our alliance partners from Wisconsin, who we then picked. When we went to champs, i was a freshman who had no idea what to expect. What I found was a city in a building- a global community that understood and sought inspiration from one another. I scouted with a Canadian team, shared tools with an isreali team, drooled over a robot made completely of laser cut wood; I learned so much from all kinds of teams from all over the world. Yet, despite the many backgrounds of these teams, they all shared one common trait: they were all a vital part of the unique energy of the global community that is FRC championships.
The next year, we were an alliance captain at both of our events for the first time in team history, going to finals at Midwest before being taken out by two of the best shooters in the world. This year, we kept pushing, and we got our first ever chairman's win and our first ever 1st seed, and are ranked among the top teams in the world for OPR.
It's amazing what one small taste of championships can do. Even if you aren't the best at your regional, know that if you really, really dedicate yourself and seek out your own inspiration, success will come to you.
The inspiration champs instills in students is not from simply being there. Your hard work and perseverance, the diversity, and the energy of this global community are what makes champs such an inspiring experience. I think it'd be a mistake for FIRST to forget this.
Dunngeon
11-04-2015, 02:06
As one of these teams, in fact 31st out of 31 PNW slots (before waitlist candidates), I can say I agree. While we had a good enough robot and enough practice to win a district, we weren't as competitive as the top tier at the DCMP.
Our goal as a team, was to make it to world's in this transition year. It feels amazing and the kids are proud, because they know we worked hard to earn it. We want to be competitive at Saint Louis, we want to do our best to contribute in Qualification Matches, but most importantly we want to build a team.
I want my students to strive to be better, to learn more and want more. Being able to show them robots and teams that continue to inspire me allows me to do that. Without the risk of failure or more importantly a lofty goal to reach, how can I expect them to be Inspired to grow.
Teams don't want a banner or a championship slot handed to them, they want to earn it. Winning a match in the finals is not just a victory in the moment, it's being rewarded for all the hard work we put in during the season and up until then at the event.
You want to inspire? Give people all the examples they can get, teach them, and reward them the right amount for the time and effort they put in. That's inspiring.
I couldn't agree more, your team earned that spot at Champs and I'm super excited that you guys were able to qualify. This is why I like having more slots to send teams to champs from a DCMP event.
What I don't particularly like is sending more teams from the waitlist, while it could (and has) inspire(d) teams, they also have very little vested into it since it's random. If anything, institute Super Regionals in non-district regions so that more teams can be in 4513's (MikLast's) position.
Alex2614
11-04-2015, 14:30
While there are no perfect solutions, here are my thoughts…
Call the first of the two “championships” the “FIRST Festival” and qualify as many teams as possible (bigger is better). While still a competition, this event would be structured as a great big party with focus on celebration of achievement, changing culture and inspiration. Hall of Fame teams would have automatic invite, championship chairman’s award would be awarded here, plenty of great teams from across the world will make it loud. Bring a film crew and capture the energy, team stories, action, etc. Provide a suitable award for the winners of the competition like the next year’s fees paid, etc.
Call the second of the two “championships” the “FIRST World Championships” and only qualify the best 240 teams from around the world (there are plenty of statisticians on here that can provide the ranking criteria from year to year). Instead of casting it as a big party, fill it will pomp and circumstance. Have 4 divisions of 60 teams; keep it smaller to provide as many qualification matches as possible. Given the smaller size and selection criteria this should be an extremely high performance event so broadcast the World Championships on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPNUNameIt… Use the massaged footage from the “FIRST Festival” to fill in the natural pauses in competition. And we can anoint the “Champions of the World”.
If FIRST Festival is around 600 teams and FIRST Word Championships is around 240, you still end up with 840 with plenty of inspiration and meaningful competition.
They do this (to an extent) in FLL. There is a US Open Championship and the World Festival (Championship event). I absolutely love your idea. This combined with better and more inspiring DCMPs will help this tremendously.
I still feel like we could have supported 600-800 FRC teams in Atlanta plus FLL and FTC. We didn't even come close to utilizing half of the space available in Atlanta. Put FTC in the Philips Arena (pits in one of the other exhibit buildings) and FLL in another exhibit building.
They do this (to an extent) in FLL. There is a US Open Championship and the World Festival (Championship event). I absolutely love your idea. This combined with better and more inspiring DCMPs will help this tremendously.
I still feel like we could have supported 600-800 FRC teams in Atlanta plus FLL and FTC. We didn't even come close to utilizing half of the space available in Atlanta. Put FTC in the Philips Arena (pits in one of the other exhibit buildings) and FLL in another exhibit building.Just pointing out that the 800 team + J/FLL + FTC issue might not be so much about venue space as it is about things like hotels.
This is one of the reasons I like the FRC Champs, FTC Champs split: it could conceivably keep the sheer number of people in each city around what FIRST and those metros were planning for.
For many years I have volunteered to give conference sessions at the Championship with topics ranging from how to build community alliances to engaging parents to recruiting corporate volunteers. A couple of years ago there was a mentor who attended one of these sessions who shared with me that he obtained funding from his school system to attend the Championship BECAUSE of the conferences. Although these sessions have definitely gotten more polished over the years and expanded I continue to feel that "beefing" up the conferences held in conjunction with the Championship to be a destination in themselves has been a missed opportunity.
The elite Super teams are going to continue to not like this, along with most teams that have already been to championship. The teams that have not been to championship before may not care whether there is one or two places to go. They just are as excited either way.
The championship event isn't just about the participants because the spectators matter as well. Although only a small fraction of the community can participate anyone can spectate. It won't benefit anyone if the viewing experience declines. Even if a team could attend championships every 4 years, attending the event will be a less special experience compared to previous years for 1 year, and for the other 3 the viewing experience will have declined as well. I don't think it's a good trade off.
ghostmachine360
11-04-2015, 17:40
I hope they do the same with the chairman's winners between the two as well.
To do what, compete? What purpose does that serve?
matthewdenny
11-04-2015, 17:58
Everybody in this thread is "not being able to see all the teams when I go to champs isn't as inspiring"
And I'm over here thinking I'd be happy if autonomous worked right for once.
jman4747
11-04-2015, 18:18
Well FIRST has defined what their purpose for championships is and how they want to achieve it. That much is their right. They have asked us to help them make it work and I say we should help.
If you don't think it aligns with your way of inspiring people than I guess FRC isn't for you? Because somehow this just won't inspire any new people ever again?
So I'm going to reiterate this.
FIRST has every right to decide on their general direction on their own. If you don't like it than what will you do? You could help them make as good as it can be or sit back and gripe.
You can refuse to participate further as well. Those are some choices (not all?) you have the right now. But FIRST decided this is what the championship event they run for the competition they run should be like. So that's probably what they will be doing and they sure can if they want.
PS: I'm not (didn't?) say you should quit I said that if it doesn't align with your philosophies then you don't have to stay with the program and complain, though that too is an option (clearly).
piersklein
11-04-2015, 19:33
As a way of partially fixing this which requires little change: The Winning Alliance from whichever CMP event comes first will be given *free* entrance to the second CMP event where they will play the winning alliance thus crowning a world champion.
Seth Mallory
11-04-2015, 19:46
I posted this on another thread but it works for here.
As long as FIRST has no touching games like this year then it is just high score wins. In that case the highest score from one of the 2 championships would be the champ. All FIRST would have to do is make sure there are no common game pieces in the finals like the center cans. This maybe one of the reasons for this years game format.
Having another play off for crowning the champ is hard on students. Some students need time in school to get the grades for the FIRST scholarships.
As a way of partially fixing this which requires little change: The Winning Alliance from whichever CMP event comes first will be given *free* entrance to the second CMP event where they will play the winning alliance thus crowning a world champion.The problem with the head-to-head isn't registration (I think we'd all be appalled if they had to pay $5K just to do a best-of-2 or so series). It's the cost of travel and hotels with less than a week's notice, pulling students out of school yet again, getting mentors off of work...
I'm also not sure people agree on how much of a partial fix this is, except that it's very little. I haven't read or heard anyone that's upset simply that there are two championship alliances; they're upset that there are two because process of getting them is totally...ahem. A final showdown is essentially a red herring in the debate, being both so easy to promote and schedule (while difficult to execute) and so meaningless to the central issues.
On the other poor hand, if this also actually meant that FRC will never bring back defense (through 2020), I think we all hope that we as a community can refrain from actually rioting at the Town Hall.
So I'm going to reiterate this.
FIRST has every right to decide on their general direction on their own. If you don't like it than what will you do? You could help them make as good as it can be or sit back and gripe.
You can refuse to participate further as well. Those are some choices (not all?) you have the right now. But FIRST decided this is what the championship event they run for the competition they run should be like. So that's probably what they will be doing and they sure can if they want.
PS: I'm not (didn't?) say you should quit I said that if it doesn't align with your philosophies then you don't have to stay with the program and complain, though that too is an option (clearly).
I think FIRST and everyone here complaining probably have the same goals, we just have different ideas on how to accomplish them. I'm sure the people who thought of this idea are very smart, but there are thousands of people in the community overwhelmingly against this idea, and they are also very smart. Chances are they didn't think this through and it's in FIRST's best interest to listen. It would be very silly of them not to.
FIRST has every right to decide on their general direction on their own. If you don't like it than what will you do? You could help them make as good as it can be or sit back and gripe.
You can refuse to participate further as well. Those are some choices (not all?) you have the right now. But FIRST decided this is what the championship event they run for the competition they run should be like. So that's probably what they will be doing and they sure can if they want.
Is FIRST a bunch of staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH trying to run a non-profit organization as efficiently as possible, or is FIRST a collection of robotics teams trying change culture and promote STEM fields and inspire students to pursue careers in those fields and/or be effective communicators and leaders (with assistance and organization from staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH)?
If it's the latter, don't those robotics teams deserve a say in the direction of FIRST? They didn't get it prior to this announcement.
jman4747
11-04-2015, 20:17
I think FIRST and everyone here complaining probably have the same goals, we just have different ideas on how to accomplish them. I'm sure the people who thought of this idea are very smart, but there are thousands of people in the community overwhelmingly against this idea, and they are also very smart. Chances are they didn't think this through and it's in FIRST's best interest to listen. It would be very silly of them not to.
But the methods are still up to them. And we have to remember that for as much as we know the challenges of running our teams they know what they are having to do to run FIRST. They made a hard locked dicision about how they need to run it in the future so give them a minute to prove it I'd say.
I mean the non-profit USFIRST when I say FIRST. The staff and leadership.
jman4747
11-04-2015, 20:26
Is FIRST a bunch of staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH trying to run a non-profit organization as efficiently as possible, or is FIRST a collection of robotics teams trying change culture and promote STEM fields and inspire students to pursue careers in those fields and/or be effective communicators and leaders (with assistance and organization from staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH)?
If it's the latter, don't those robotics teams deserve a say in the direction of FIRST? They didn't get it prior to this announcement.
I made an edit.
So you are right, but the non-profit decides how this championship we are arguing about is put on and know what they need to do to do it. We get some of it but they take main responsibility for the catalyst that we use to inspire so lets see before we start thinking about things like jumping ship.
I made an edit.
So you are right, but the non-profit decides how this championship we are arguing about is put on and know what they need to do to do it. We get some of it but they take main responsibility for the catalyst that we use to inspire so lets see before we start thinking about things like jumping ship.
You mean jump ship before we see how the new championships work, like how FIRST did with this year?
jman4747
11-04-2015, 21:10
You mean jump ship before we see how the new championships work, like how FIRST did with this year?
Describe in what ways specifically.
From what I see the championship is fundamentally the same but with more divisions and venue splitting allowing for a ~600 team cap for FRC instead of a ~400 team cap last year. That isn't much different from 2014 and subsequently prior years using the same basic structure. Thus they would be familiar with how the 2015 will work because it is structurally the same as what they have been familiar with.
They made a system and duplicated a part (divisions) while shifting another (FTC/FLL) to make room. It's actually a good example of a systems/industrial engineering problem. Also this concept isn't incompatible with the split championship model and likely could be implemented at either with proper planing.
Is FIRST a bunch of staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH trying to run a non-profit organization as efficiently as possible, or is FIRST a collection of robotics teams trying change culture and promote STEM fields and inspire students to pursue careers in those fields and/or be effective communicators and leaders (with assistance and organization from staffers at 200 Bedford St, Manchester, NH)?
If it's the latter, don't those robotics teams deserve a say in the direction of FIRST? They didn't get it prior to this announcement.
I would say that you are posing either a false dichotomy, or have written an ill-formed question, or both.
"FIRST" is both of the entities you mentioned, and more. There is no "either/or" involved.
An analogy would be that my body doesn't have a vital organ, it has vital organs.
Blake
I would say that you are posing either a false dichotomy, or have written an ill-formed question, or both.
"FIRST" is both of the entities you mentioned, and more. There is no "either/or" involved.
An analogy would be that my body doesn't have a vital organ, it has vital organs.
Blake
The question could have been formed better. The point was to question whether FIRST staffers (many of whom seem to be ill-informed about FRC teams and competitions (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1468539&postcount=302)) or actual FIRST teams should be determining the direction of organization. The post I was responding to implied it should be the staffers at FIRST headquarters, and that we should just go along with what they decide.
The post I was responding to implied it should be the staffers at FIRST headquarters, and that we should just go along with what they decide.
That is, to some extent, a true thought.
However, we should be doing our best to inform them of how any decisions they make affect us (as a whole). And, going along with that, they should be thinking of how any major decisions like this will affect teams, and effect the goals and mission of FIRST.
This particular decision, and the manner of its carrying out, match up to some others they've done in the past.
--FVC switching to FTC (result: teams with several $K invested in VEX stuff already did not enter FTC, and suddenly VRC had a really strong foundation to grow on)
--The inaugural district area (result: MASSIVE outcry, questioning, complaining, etc. on a variety of issues. Now, 6 years later, the outcry is going the "other way"--instead of "why do they get them" it's "why don't we have them".)
--Changing of control systems: '08-'09 rather than '14-'15. The former was mostly unannounced--we had a few months, as I recall, but beta teams were few in number, and it was rather sudden. The latter we knew was coming when FIRST put out a call for proposals roughly two years in advance, a call for alpha teams, and a call for beta teams. Slight difference in methodology, showing that they learned from a past mistake.
If there's one thing FIRST takes away from this announcement and its fallout, it should be this: If a major change is coming up, consult the community, in some form, before making the announcement. "Test the waters" if you will, or in another manner, try to get a few key people on board first. At least hear their objections. THEN announce and work on answering other questions that crop up.
jman4747
11-04-2015, 22:58
The question could have been formed better. The point was to question whether FIRST staffers (many of whom seem to be ill-informed about FRC teams and competitions (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1468539&postcount=302)) or actual FIRST teams should be determining the direction of organization. The post I was responding to implied it should be the staffers at FIRST headquarters, and that we should just go along with what they decide.
And my post was suggesting that the leadership of USFIRST decide how to run the competition to fit the goals they state in their mission. They aren't telling us how to inspire, they are telling us the best way they see for them to contribute to doing so.
Abhishek R
11-04-2015, 23:04
If there's one thing FIRST takes away from this announcement and its fallout, it should be this: If a major change is coming up, consult the community, in some form, before making the announcement. "Test the waters" if you will, or in another manner, try to get a few key people on board first. At least hear their objections. THEN announce and work on answering other questions that crop up.
I think that's really what's getting most people. I think FIRST's intentions were right. They know the number of teams is growing, and that sooner or later they were going to need an even larger Championship event. Thus, they said, why not have TWO Championship events? I'm not sure if the concerns voiced by the community were thought of beforehand, but it's clear that there wasn't any form of surveying or anything to see what people thought before announcing this major change. As a result, many mentors, alumni, and students were shocked by the shift, and we're kinda left wondering why there was no consultation until after the fact.
Anupam Goli
11-04-2015, 23:07
And my post was suggesting that the leadership of USFIRST decide how to run the competition to fit the goals they state in their mission. They aren't telling us how to inspire, they are telling us the best way they see for them to contribute to doing so.
But like, what if their way is not the best? We're starting to come full circle here, but the whole idea is this proposal has been put, no one knew even a rumor about this, until it was a done deal.
And my post was suggesting that the leadership of USFIRST decide how to run the competition to fit the goals they state in their mission. They aren't telling us how to inspire, they are telling us the best way they see for them to contribute to doing so.
Just as a thought...
Have you ever stood on a mountain, and looked out to another place? Looks like the best way to get from point A to point B is a route, let's call it X. But if you actually talk to people who've gone that route, X might actually be a really lousy route, for a variety of reasons. Maybe Y, which you see but think isn't the best, is actually the better route, for reasons you didn't think about. But if you are telling a bunch of new hikers that X is better...
That's essentially what FIRST HQ is doing. They're standing up on the mountain, setting the direction for the group. But they aren't actually walking that route with the teams. They largely haven't experienced what teams go through. They've gotten better about trying to pay attention to that, no doubt, but they've still got a long ways to go. Not at the Frank level (he's got enough staff who've been on teams to know what's going on, and he pays attention to forums and all), but above that. This isn't FRC HQ talking in the initial announcement, this is USFIRST HQ talking. FRC HQ is the one who announced the townhall.
jman4747
11-04-2015, 23:26
But like, what if their way is not the best? We're starting to come full circle here, but the whole idea is this proposal has been put, no one knew even a rumor about this, until it was a done deal.
And what if our various different ways which presumably have had less thought and analysis aren't the best? The second we add "what if" we really hit a death spiral of sorts because we actually can't know how it will turn out.
Just as a thought...
Have you ever stood on a mountain, and looked out to another place? Looks like the best way to get from point A to point B is a route, let's call it X. But if you actually talk to people who've gone that route, X might actually be a really lousy route, for a variety of reasons. Maybe Y, which you see but think isn't the best, is actually the better route, for reasons you didn't think about. But if you are telling a bunch of new hikers that X is better...
That's essentially what FIRST HQ is doing. They're standing up on the mountain, setting the direction for the group. But they aren't actually walking that route with the teams. They largely haven't experienced what teams go through. They've gotten better about trying to pay attention to that, no doubt, but they've still got a long ways to go. Not at the Frank level (he's got enough staff who've been on teams to know what's going on, and he pays attention to forums and all), but above that. This isn't FRC HQ talking in the initial announcement, this is USFIRST HQ talking. FRC HQ is the one who announced the townhall.
Well you make another point that the group they are suggesting this path to is not just FRC teams. How dose that play into this? How will this look for all the programs in two plus years?
The route of split FIRST world championships is not something an FRC team has done. We all think we know that a tiered system will work and it likely would but the people who have to put it together before we get there have set forth a foreign plan that is so far untested.
They aren't pointing down route X or Y, they found R and want to give it a shot. All of HQ's personnel haven't been on a team and just the same we haven't all run USFIRST.
Abhishek R
11-04-2015, 23:32
And what if our various different ways which presumably have had less thought and analysis aren't the best? The second we add "what if" we really hit a death spiral of sorts because we actually can't know how it will turn out.
Well you make another point that the group they are suggesting this path to is not just FRC teams. How dose that play into this? How will this look for all the programs in two plus years?
The route of split FIRST world championships is not something an FRC team has done. We all think we know that a tiered system will work and it likely would but the people who have to put it together before we get there have set forth a foreign plan that is so far untested.
They aren't pointing down route X or Y, they found R and want to give it a shot. All of HQ's personnel haven't been on a team and just the same we haven't all run USFIRST.
While I think most of us understand what you're saying, when we build our robots, there are some things we don't have to prototype or test to know it's a bad idea.
jman4747
11-04-2015, 23:45
While I think most of us understand what you're saying, when we build our robots, there are some things we don't have to prototype or test to know it's a bad idea.
And there are some things you have to test to know if they are a good idea.
There are also some things you test that should have been a good idea but don't work in the end.
Abhishek R
11-04-2015, 23:50
And there are some things you have to test to know if they are a good idea.
There are also some things you test that should have been a good idea but don't work in the end.
When we test ideas, we don't immediately jump it and put it on the competition robot. We check out the geometry, look at everything it could possibly mess up on the robot as is, and then try it on the practice robot before making changes to the competition robot. Same with code, and same should be for FIRST. Any form of communication, pilot test, survey? From what appears to be the consensus on CD, there wasn't anything.
And what if our various different ways which presumably have had less thought and analysis aren't the best? The second we add "what if" we really hit a death spiral of sorts because we actually can't know how it will turn out.Which is exactly the problem. HQ made the deliberate choice to limit their level of research into this issue, and thus their potential for informed thought and analysis. The "what if" is already there: they put it there. What if they'd been transparent? No one can know how this will play out, and HQ made the conscious decision to introduce unknowns into their decision.
Maybe they are right. Maybe "we" are right (whoever "we" are). Maybe we're both wrong. No one will ever know which is most true, because only one decision can be (and will be) implemented. This is normal and inevitable. The current assessment is necessarily a probabilistic one. In those terms, being informed by your stakeholders raises your chances of making an informed decision, which increases the likelihood that the decision will be a correct one.
jman4747
12-04-2015, 00:22
Which is exactly the problem. HQ made the deliberate choice to limit their level of research into this issue, and thus their potential for informed thought and analysis. The "what if" is already there: they put it there. What if they'd been transparent? No one can know how this will play out, and HQ made the conscious decision to introduce unknowns into their decision.
Maybe they are right. Maybe "we" are right (whoever "we" are). Maybe we're both wrong. No one will ever know which is most true, because only one decision can be (and will be) implemented. This is normal and inevitable. The current assessment is necessarily a probabilistic one. In those terms, being informed by your stakeholders raises your chances of making an informed decision, which increases the likelihood that the decision will be a correct one.
"We" is the FRC community.
How to utilize the championship event and experience to fulfill the goals of USFIRST is up to USFIRST. They know better than anyone what they are able to do. If we want to help fulfill those goals with the methodology they set out and how is up to us.
How to utilize the championship event and experience to fulfill the goals of USFIRST is up to USFIRST. They know better than anyone what they are able to do. If we want to help fulfill those goals with the methodology they set out and how is up to us.
Here's a question that neither you, nor HQ, seems to have thought about.
How does it fit FIRST's goals--AT ALL--if multiple mentors decide that because of this change, they will no longer help fulfill FIRST's goals (at least within FIRST)? Particularly if teams fold as a result? Can you answer me that?
Trust me, I've seen the postings. There are mentors who had that reaction almost immediately. Long-time mentors. If your team had a 10-year+ mentor "threaten" to leave over this, you'd realize just how bad this is. (Mine hasn't, that I know about--but then again, most of the mentors haven't been around FIRST for more than about 5-7 years.)
I don't give a darn that FIRST knows better than anyone what they are able to do. What they have chosen to do is up to them--but if they alienate large numbers of people, they're shooting themselves in the foot, and that's EXACTLY what they just about did with the announcement. And when they say "this is how it's going to be, now you can ask us questions", a lot of people won't be thinking about the "how". They're thinking about the "if" and the "why couldn't we ask questions before".
These mentors know a far sight better than FIRST HQ what their individual teams' goals, missions, dreams, and abilities are, and what the community reaction will be in event of X happening. When HQ appears to take a step that directly contradicts an awful lot of those local teams' ideals, there are only two possibilities: Either the team mentors are out of touch with HQ's view of FIRST's goals, or HQ is out of touch with the teams. Neither ends well unless someone from either side or both reaches out.
jman4747
12-04-2015, 01:34
Here's a question that neither you, nor HQ, seems to have thought about.
How does it fit FIRST's goals--AT ALL--if multiple mentors decide that because of this change, they will no longer help fulfill FIRST's goals (at least within FIRST)? Particularly if teams fold as a result? Can you answer me that?
Trust me, I've seen the postings. There are mentors who had that reaction almost immediately. Long-time mentors. If your team had a 10-year+ mentor "threaten" to leave over this, you'd realize just how bad this is. (Mine hasn't, that I know about--but then again, most of the mentors haven't been around FIRST for more than about 5-7 years.)
I don't give a darn that FIRST knows better than anyone what they are able to do. What they have chosen to do is up to them--but if they alienate large numbers of people, they're shooting themselves in the foot, and that's EXACTLY what they just about did with the announcement. And when they say "this is how it's going to be, now you can ask us questions", a lot of people won't be thinking about the "how". They're thinking about the "if" and the "why couldn't we ask questions before".
These mentors know a far sight better than FIRST HQ what their individual teams' goals, missions, dreams, and abilities are, and what the community reaction will be in event of X happening. When HQ appears to take a step that directly contradicts an awful lot of those local teams' ideals, there are only two possibilities: Either the team mentors are out of touch with HQ's view of FIRST's goals, or HQ is out of touch with the teams. Neither ends well unless someone from either side or both reaches out.
Well I would then suggest you reach out as you say insted of leave.
Well I would then suggest you reach out as you say insted of leave.
I never said that I was leaving. I said that some mentors were thinking about leaving. There is a difference.
I won't be in St. Louis. But I'm really hoping that a number of veteran mentors that ARE there will be at the townhall. (I'm also hoping that there's a Q&A, and that the HQ folks brought a lot of notepaper, because I'm pretty sure they're going to get an earful.)
And from the sound of things... they're going to need a lot more time for the earful than they will have scheduled for the Town Hall.
"We" is the FRC community.Sorry, that was my "we" intended to designate that the FRC community, even within the dissenters, has not reached a consensus plan. I wasn't attempting to quote you out of context or invoke your definition.
How to utilize the championship event and experience to fulfill the goals of USFIRST is up to USFIRST. They know better than anyone what they are able to do. If we want to help fulfill those goals with the methodology they set out and how is up to us.Knowing what one is able to do does not lead directly to making the correct choice. Having a decision within one's discretion does not mean that one is the best qualified to unilaterally decide it. We all understand that this decision is made; that does not mean that it is good.
There are two different goals for this Town Hall (or as a general response to "we're listening"). One is to figure out how to work within the framework HQ created with these contracts. The other is to express dissatisfaction at HQ's process and/or decision. The latter aim is not simply to complain; it's to elucidate the "cost" side of the cost-benefit to HQ of them ever doing something like this again. And, quite frankly, the cost they've already accrued in doing so.
Grim Tuesday
12-04-2015, 12:41
I don't know if anyone's proposed any solutions rather than just grousing, but here's an idea:
Send the winner of whichever event is first to the second one (all expenses paid), have them play the winner of the second one for the World Champions title. Lock their robots up right after the final match of the first event to try to minimize the impact that not playing for a week would have. No withholding allowance. The biggest issue is fatigue of the drive team for the one that just went through a whole champs+Einstein elims bracket, but I don't know if there is any other solution. Rotate which event is the earlier week every other year.
MrRoboSteve
12-04-2015, 13:36
Here's a question that neither you, nor HQ, seems to have thought about.
How does it fit FIRST's goals--AT ALL--if multiple mentors decide that because of this change, they will no longer help fulfill FIRST's goals (at least within FIRST)? Particularly if teams fold as a result? Can you answer me that?
Just to verify, I am hearing you propose this standard for changes to the FRC program:
No decision made by FIRST regarding FRC will ever cause a mentor to leave the program.
Just to verify, I am hearing you propose this standard for changes to the FRC program:
No decision made by FIRST regarding FRC will ever cause a mentor to leave the program.
If he's proposing a standard, it's more along the lines of:
No decision made by FIRST regarding FRC will ever cause a significant number of long-time, core mentors of highly regarded (i.e. Hall of Fame) FRC teams to leave the program.
George Nishimura
12-04-2015, 13:49
His proposed standard is more along the lines of:
No decision made by FIRST regarding FRC will ever cause a significant number of long-time, core mentors of highly regarded (i.e. Hall of Fame) FRC teams to leave the program.
I don't see a proposed standard in his post. To me it's more the fact that FIRST should question, and account for, any decision that could cause several experienced mentors to leave the program.
FIRST can make a decision that causes that, but they have to recognise the cost of such a decision up front. We are all worse off if FIRST continue an approach where they only realize the repercussions of important decisions after the damage has been done.
The best way to avoid making any decision that could ostracize valuable members of the community is to keep an open dialogue with [at least] a subset of the community, especially before committing to an important decision.
An outline of the vision in the short, medium and long-term would also help put their decisions in to perspective, so we're not trying to reverse-engineer their thinking to understand decisions that contradict our previously held beliefs about their vision. Especially when this is such a community driven organisation.
MrRoboSteve
12-04-2015, 14:16
If he's proposing a standard, it's more along the lines of:
No decision made by FIRST regarding FRC will ever cause a significant number of long-time, core mentors of highly regarded (i.e. Hall of Fame) FRC teams to leave the program.
Suppose you were considering a change that you knew would make 20 mentors of HoF teams quit, but it allowed 4000 more students each year to be inspired by going to Champs. Does that mean you'd never make that change?
MrRoboSteve
12-04-2015, 14:35
I don't see a proposed standard in his post. To me it's more the fact that FIRST should question, and account for, any decision that could cause several experienced mentors to leave the program.
FIRST can make a decision that causes that, but they have to recognise the cost of such a decision up front. We are all worse off if FIRST continue an approach where they only realize the repercussions of important decisions after the damage has been done.
The best way to avoid making any decision that could ostracize valuable members of the community is to keep an open dialogue with [at least] a subset of the community, especially before committing to an important decision.
An outline of the vision in the short, medium and long-term would also help put their decisions in to perspective, so we're not trying to reverse-engineer their thinking to understand decisions that contradict our previously held beliefs about their vision. Especially when this is such a community driven organisation.
Eric's statement expressed disbelief that FIRST would consider any decision that caused mentors to leave. My point is that, with as many mentors as there are now, there's no major decision that FIRST can make around the competition schedule that won't cause mentors to leave. (I take Eric's POV as more representative than many of the commenters here, based on the team he's affiliated with.)
Let me give you an example. Some of the proposals floated around on this and other threads propose a 5 or 6 event schedule for a team, if they go all the way. That sort of schedule, if adopted, will certainly cause mentors to leave because it's too much time. Yet the only time "mentors leaving" gets discussed in these threads is over the change from "one true championship" to "two championships," and its motivational effect on teams.
I agree with your statements that FIRST needs to carefully consider the impacts of changes that it makes. At the same time, giving a small number of mentors veto power over changes will make it very difficult to make decisions. And I totally get where you're coming on reverse engineering their thinking, being one of the chief practitioners of that particular art in these threads. There are clearly many more factors going into this decision than what has been presented publicly. I suspect this is a decision that needed to be made now, and with everything else that goes on during competition season got as much communication effort as they could. (Couldn't resist more reverse engineering).
Can you point specifically to where FIRST is ostracizing members of the community as part of this decision? I see where there are differences of opinion regarding the means to achieve goals, but haven't seen any ostracism.
Can you point specifically to where FIRST is ostracizing members of the community as part of this decision? I see where there are differences of opinion regarding the means to achieve goals, but haven't seen any ostracism.
The ostracism came when they announced what amounts to a major change of direction for all FIRST programs with (as far as we're aware) no input from anyone outside of FIRST HQ.
Suppose you were considering a change that you knew would make 20 mentors of HoF teams quit, but it allowed 4000 more students each year to be inspired by going to Champs. Does that mean you'd never make that change?
I posted in another thread a few minutes ago:
Those HOF/Otherwise super-elite teams are as inspiring as they are because of a very small number of very dedicated mentors.
If a change makes those mentors want to leave, its bad. Losing those mentors, would in turn make those HOF/Otherwise super-elite teams less inspiring.
If those teams are less inspiring, does allowing 4000 more students see the husk of their former inspiration achieve more than letting fewer see them be their best?
MrRoboSteve
12-04-2015, 15:53
Difficult question, isn't it? I think reasonable people, all committed to FIRST's goals, could disagree on the answer.
DonRotolo
12-04-2015, 15:53
Sorry, tl;dr
Mentors come and go.
Many railed against Aliances at first.
Many railed against Districts at first.
Now we rail against semi-CMPs. But in a few years, when we end up with 4 or 5 of them, we'll add a new layer, and we'll be back where we started.
The only other solution is for someone to build a venue that can handle 1200 FRC teams plus all other FIRST programs. No Way No How.
The only other solution is for someone to build a venue that can handle 1200 FRC teams plus all other FIRST programs. No Way No How.
Really? The only other solution? You can't think of any other ones?
How about keeping Champs at 600 teams? Even this year, 38 out of 121 teams from MAR are going to Champs. (That's 31%, by comparison, 43% of MAR teams went to the DCMP). I think we can afford to let a smaller percentage of teams go to champs. The district system makes this easy, since the proportion of teams let through from a region is easily adjusted.
Suppose you were considering a change that you knew would make 20 mentors of HoF teams quit, but it allowed 4000 more students each year to be inspired by going to Champs. Does that mean you'd never make that change?
You know why these teams are HoF right? They spend alot of time working within their community advancing STEMs, building up the FRC community, and pushing FIRST goals not only here in North american but other countries as well. I believe that these HoF teams help to inspire far more students every year then this expanded Champs will.
Also the idea that a student needs to get to champs to be inspired is silly and reflects bad on any team and it's mentors/coachs that can't qualify or lacks the funds to go.
Just to verify, I am hearing you propose this standard for changes to the FRC program:
No decision made by FIRST regarding FRC will ever cause a mentor to leave the program.
If he's proposing a standard, it's more along the lines of:
No decision made by FIRST regarding FRC will ever cause a significant number of long-time, core mentors of highly regarded (i.e. Hall of Fame) FRC teams to leave the program.
Just so you two are aware, you're putting words in my mouth. I am proposing no such standard. I am putting out a question that should have been considered, but wasn't. (And just to be more to the point: The question was aimed more at a CD poster who seemed to be saying "HQ is always right, shut up" than at HQ.)
I don't see a proposed standard in his post. To me it's more the fact that FIRST should question, and account for, any decision that could cause several experienced mentors to leave the program.
FIRST can make a decision that causes that, but they have to recognise the cost of such a decision up front. We are all worse off if FIRST continue an approach where they only realize the repercussions of important decisions after the damage has been done.[snip] Exactly what I was getting at. You've got long-term, committed mentors talking about leaving. That's not a good thing for their teams (regardless of the reason).
Suppose you were considering a change that you knew would make 20 mentors of HoF teams quit, but it allowed 4000 more students each year to be inspired by going to Champs. Does that mean you'd never make that change? No, it wouldn't. It would, however, mean that I would reach out to those mentors either before or immediately following with a very detailed reasoning why the change was being made, and why it was being made in the way that it was. There's a difference between that and the method HQ used... It would also mean that I would be taking that change very seriously, not lightly. I would be making sure that I had as much information as I could before making the decision.
Eric's statement expressed disbelief that FIRST would consider any decision that caused mentors to leave. My point is that, with as many mentors as there are now, there's no major decision that FIRST can make around the competition schedule that won't cause mentors to leave. (I take Eric's POV as more representative than many of the commenters here, based on the team he's affiliated with.) You also are putting words in my mouth, and you are making a seriously flawed assumption to boot. I'm not expressing disbelief, I'm saying that they apparently didn't consider that particular effect of their decision. And when you look just at the team I'm affiliated with, you ignore the team(S) in my signature. If you can honestly tell me that you've never heard of at least one, you got another think comin'.
I agree that it's difficult to make a decision and not have mentors leave--but mentors leave anyways, for other reasons. There's a difference between a few mentors leaving for personal reasons and lots of mentors leaving because HQ makes a mistake.
The ostracism came when they announced what amounts to a major change of direction for all FIRST programs with (as far as we're aware) no input from anyone outside of FIRST HQ. Bingo. If HQ takes no input, and then changes the course rather radically, then they're going to alienate critical people.
If those teams are less inspiring, does allowing 4000 more students see the husk of their former inspiration achieve more than letting fewer see them be their best?
Difficult question, isn't it? I think reasonable people, all committed to FIRST's goals, could disagree on the answer.I'm going to ask a related question; your answer will tell me (and yourself) a lot about your views on the whole topic under discussion.
Quantity or Quality?
If you favor "Quantity", your view lines up with HQ's apparent view. Lots of teams means lots of inspired students, which is good for FIRST's goals.
If you favor "Quality", you take the view that a lot of teams do: Slow down the growth in favor of sustainability. Not quite so many teams, but they'll last longer, and each individual team will impact more students. This is also good for FIRST's goals. That's why we're taking the threat of mentors leaving seriously.
dudefise
12-04-2015, 18:48
As an alum, I'm not super against this or for it - really don't have enough information. I do find it a bit surprising since it's so...different. Same with RR. Not the biggest fan of the game but I'm quite happy with some of the outcomes - students inspired, things built and ideas realized.
My compromise would be to instead of adding another full layer, simply get one HUGE venue (or two adjacent large venues), in a big city and expand to 8-alliance Einstein.
Bigger conventions happen all the time. So why can't we do that? What's the point in diluting the "CHAMPIONSHIP" name if you could do the same elsewhere? That's the bit I'm confused about.
My compromise would be to instead of adding another full layer, simply get one HUGE venue (or two adjacent large venues), in a big city and expand to 8-alliance Einstein.
Bigger conventions happen all the time. So why can't we do that? What's the point in diluting the "CHAMPIONSHIP" name if you could do the same elsewhere? That's the bit I'm confused about. It's not in this thread, but there's some discussion in http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136519&page=4 (start at post #48) on just what it would take to get that happening. Some square-footage requirements, some loose sizes, and throw in other stuff that needs to be handled. Good luck...
Those HOF/Otherwise super-elite teams are as inspiring as they are because of a very small number of very dedicated mentors.
HOF teams are inspiring because an ever changing group of people spent a lot of time creating programs that will withstand student, sponsor, and mentor turnover. No one group makes a team a HOF team.
Navid Shafa
12-04-2015, 20:25
HOF teams are inspiring because an ever changing group of people spent a lot of time creating programs that will withstand student, sponsor, and mentor turnover. No one group makes a team a HOF team.
I'm sure you can attest to this better than I can. While I'm certain many of these teams experience turnover like the rest of FRC, some of these HOF teams have cultivated a sustained mentor base that isn't easily impacted by turnover. Having the ability to retain those key mentors is huge. Institutional knowledge of FRC often makes the difference between a good team and a great one. The fact that some of these teams have mentors who've been with their program, or at least FRC for 10-15+ years is certainly a testament to the program those teams have created. I would argue that this key group of mentors certainly helped shape those teams, and many of them continue to do so today.
Dunngeon
12-04-2015, 21:15
Now we rail against semi-CMPs. But in a few years, when we end up with 4 or 5 of them, we'll add a new layer, and we'll be back where we started.
I'd like FIRST to actually outline the long term vision. It's quite obvious that their long term vision differs significantly from the one that was outlined a few years ago.
jman4747
12-04-2015, 21:17
Didn't say USFIRST headquarters was right. I said the had the right to make the decision and these three threads aren't going to help anything.
You don't have to shut up and march but if you wan't to positively affect the program. Telling an inspired student that split championships would be so uninspiring for none of the reasons FRC or championships was inspiring isn't inspiring. Everyone gets that almost no one on this forum likes this decision for so many reasons. That is no reason to continue the debates like this. The same basic counter arguments, people taking hypothetical speech and examples as personal attacks. If I showed this to someone new they'd be more confused by the arguments than having north and south leagues!
This is how it is and it's going to be so quit bickering and find some solutions like engineers do!
I glanced at the 2010 championships field for 30 seconds but talking to the people and seeing the robots up close... the 2010 game was a thing of the past the moment I walked from the dome to the pit, but the experience of FRC isn't a yearly thing and It doesn't depend on USFIRSTs finances or planing or weather you crown 4 winners or 8. I was never told or shown or bothered to look up the winning robots form 2010 and yet here I am. One way or another FIRST makes you want to build robots and I still do and will. The way I see it we still have a good excuse to build them.
Here is your challenge for the 2017 session and all the ones after to go along with the games. Try to inspire some people in spite of whatever the championship structure is. You'll find it'll go better than you think. Figure it out engineers.
Also spare me the "that's just why you thought it was inspiring" speech and realize the things you think this weakens don't apply to everyone either.
sanddrag
12-04-2015, 21:29
For many years I have volunteered to give conference sessions at the Championship with topics ranging from how to build community alliances to engaging parents to recruiting corporate volunteers. A couple of years ago there was a mentor who attended one of these sessions who shared with me that he obtained funding from his school system to attend the Championship BECAUSE of the conferences. Although these sessions have definitely gotten more polished over the years and expanded I continue to feel that "beefing" up the conferences held in conjunction with the Championship to be a destination in themselves has been a missed opportunity.I've skimmed every post in this thread, and y'all are either saying the same things or just talking in circles. I wanted to make sure the above quoted post didn't get lost in this discussion. It's a great suggestion, and a necessary one.
For students, I'd like to see a heavier emphasis on leadership.
For teachers, I'd like the conferences to be offered as professional development through an accredited university where I can earn postgraduate level units which can be applied to my placement on the salary schedule with my school district. This is common practice at numerous other educational conferences.
I was part of the VEX split. Two things happened, I took my many hundreds of dollars worth of parts and created VEX teams. I then took my many hundreds of hours of personal time and created events. The same as many others did (Blake) and you now have the VEX of today.
If I'm at FIRST HQ looking at the mission statement on the wall to "inspire" and look at the showcase events, I'm going to go "more showcase, more inspire" and decide to have two WC. (Not sure why they stopped there, I'd gone for 5, Europe, East Coast, North Coast, South Coast and West Coast, with the AsiaPac one in my back pocket when there were enough Down-under and China teams for the Hawaiian Teams to compete with. More Worlds! More Inspire!!
Remember FIRST is an INSPIRE company vs a WINNER company.
Someone posted that we were customers of FIRST. Yes the same way I'm a customer of Comcast. I want robotics/internet I send cash and maybe help out at an event. Neither FIRST/Comcast management ever thinks about me or cares what I think or do. I'm replaceable. Look at the 100's of 1 and 2 year teams that are gone. Too Bad So Sad. The only difference between Comcast and FIRST, people at FIRST know who I am. They BOTH still don't care when I call.
Bottom line:
-- This is a done deal
-- This was done as a way to inspire MORE NEW ROBOTEERS
-- You can stay and help, or you can go, but we are inspiring NEW ROBOTEERS
-- And yes, you can go and form "SECOND" with some of our current teams and new teams and we think that is great! There isn't enough robotics out there and having you start your own stuff means more roboteers are INSPIRED, Yay both of us!
-- Sorry about Detroit and Houston. Seen their tourism numbers? They suck. We are a big deal. We will get you cheap rooms and we got a cheap venue, you won and we won and we inspire together!
-- See you at the town hall where you can figure out how to help us out for free! (We'll bring pizza)
Sorry my cynic badge was flashing, but this is how you should read this deal. 1700 post on CD is worth it's weight in electrons, about the same as a small gob of warm spit.
Sorry CD, time is over for the denial, move to the next stage of acceptance.
Everybody in this thread is "not being able to see all the teams when I go to champs isn't as inspiring"
And I'm over here thinking I'd be happy if autonomous worked right for once.
_______________________________
815 posts read in the last 12+ hours non-stop in 2 threads (and not a peep out of me yet. Just ask anyone here, as that is highly unusual, more like very unlikely, and almost nearly impossible!)
But, I have to respond to matthewdenny's post (finally 1 that actually made me smile and laugh out loud to just myself)....I have said it before, and I'll say it again young man (Matthew Denney....You just keep thinking like that, and you will go VERY FAR in this world, and in life in general. Just keep your eye on that ball, find your true passion, and no matter what anyone says or does...You follow that passion to the very ends of the earth. (I too am praying for your autonomous to work right just once for you...and,...When it really counts!)
__________________
Earlier today I wasn't so much worried about the 2017 Dual Championships as I was the health of the 2015 Championships 1.5 weeks away that I am volunteering and my team is competing at, and the effect of these recent decisions, the timing of the announcement, and the severe backlash of the community at large. (And I thought the real major issues of the season were ALL NOW behind us all).
I hope cooler heads prevail in a week and a half in St Louis, and any town hall meeting is very civil, professional, and constructive, and a reasonable solution is also found, to a real World Champion being crowned in the future years, while still allowing more teams to earn their way as growth of FIRST continues to expand even further, and further, and more teams receive that Awe Inspiring experience also.
I don't actually buy the FLL and the FTC angles, as most~ if not all of those younger participants (if we all continue to do our jobs right, and continue to INSPIRE THEM), will also have that 4 year window of opportunity when in High School to experience attendance of at least 1 FIRST Championship event or more, if the recently unveiled plan works.
I was very lucky my very first year as a mentor (My Wife's first year as an Education mentor), and my youngest son's Freshman year (2011), that we as a family were able to attend together, with our earned invitation competing team...It was beyond inspiring, it was ABSOLUTELY AWE INSPIRING, and to sit in that Dome on the very last evening as the battle(s) commenced that would determine the 2011 FRC Champions, and realize that all that brainpower in one place, and at one time, was a (Major), but also a minor 20% of all the inspiring and inspired STEM related High School Students and Mentors in Just FRC alone, not even the entire FIRST Community...It hooked us as a family for life.
And it made me realize, that our planet's future is much brighter than I ever could have even possibly imagined! These students will be our broad spectrum world leaders soon enough. And also just how much FIRST's Mission statement, and their mission was such a huge success. (I was absolutely clueless in January 2011!)
If you build it they will come. And come they (we) are, as we all spread FIRST far & wide with outreach (we reward that outreach, inspiration, and growth with the very highest awards FIRST has to offer), and along the way, that growth will have extreme costs (and HUGE Planetary HUMAN REWARDS),....So change is inevitable, we grow it, we must change with it.
FIRST will never be able to please ALL THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME, they know it, and we know it....Now, lets work together to solve the problems caused by our metoric growth and expansion...Which we should be celebrating, instead of cringing from its results.
FIRST is listening, and we as a group (a community), are some of the largest problem solvers I have ever witnessed in my 58 year lifetime. If you can design a system to snatch 2~4 of those RC's off the shelf in .02 seconds, this problem should be a snap to come up w/ a reasonable solution to determine a world champion in 2017 and beyond.
This year 600 Robots in 8 divisions in one place 20% of all teams represented, next year the same (hopefully, but may drop again to 17% w/ more growth), and the following year (2017), 800 Robots in 8 divisions in 2 different places, 25% of all teams represented again.
(FIRST may need to actually back off that "Geographical Assignment or Placement," add in a single lottery the first year to determine whether each team is N/S, w/ 400 going to each location, and after that add an odd/even last digit Team # switch of location every 3rd. year (odd the 3rd year switch/even the 6th year switch, or even 1/2 teams switch each year by lottery at season beginning), to mix up what teams play where each year so that all teams qualified & attending will have exposure to all other attending teams throughout a 4 year run).
Add 1 final place in 2017 and beyond, mid-June (maybe FIRST HQ), where those 8 teams are rewarded w/ an all expenses paid face off to determine a World Campionship in a Nationally televised best of 7, or best of 9 match event to see who the real World Champions are. (I would go 1 further...allow after the 2 N/S events, an unbag period of 3 weeks before the mid-June event, allow both Alliances to effect repairs, practice new drivers if graduating seniors cannot move on, strategize, & cheesecake all they wanted).
Or, if that isn't agreeable, just ship all 8 of the robots to NH immediately from the N/S events bagged in the crates. 1 Truck/ 2 weekends (Houston to Detroit, then...Off to NH w/ all 8 bots & 8 Sets of Team Tool Crates)...Teams will see them in NH in 3 weeks or so. (Hey, I know where FIRST could find a whole lot of Grey/Yellow Totes to pack those tools in after this years Champs! They now own them). Now that...is Recycling!
______________________
There are other ways beyond the existing signed contracts (I had discussed something like this w/ my wife last Fall)...1 Event site 4 Days 400 Robots/Teams. Then out w/ the 1st bunch...In w/ the 2nd. Bunch next 400 Robots/Teams...You store the robots and pit gear for the winners only of days 1~4, they fly back in for the finals on the last Friday PM/Saturday AM. Just the drive team and essential personell paid for say 12 of each (Each of the 4 teams can/may send the rest of the team on their own dime if they wish). The venue goes dark 1~2 days (Sunday~Monday), for cleaning & admin. to breathe. Back at it again Wednesday.
That way, the same venue/hotels/fields, etc. can be used, and it is still a true Championships. You move that around between 4~5 geographical locations N/S/C/E/W. (You are only inconveniencing 4 teams...4 teams w/ a 50/50 shot at a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP!) How many would actually turn that down? How many of us wouldn't help them if they really couldn't afford it? Not many! (FIRST could set aside $50.00~$100.00 of all 800 teams entry fee to Champs to create a fund for the returning 4 teams=$40~&80K).
12 Team Members Ea. X 4 Teams X $600.00 Flight Avg.=$28,800.00/1 night hotel 48 X$100.=$4,800.00=$33,600.00 Total =Very Doable! (Of course as FIRST, I'd be hitting up a Major set of Airlines or Other Major Corporations wanting top billing exposure, to Sponsor the returning teams playing for the Championships myself for both the home & back round trip flights! And building the returning teams 1 room night into the actual event contract.) </;-)~
(There would be no strategy that would help any team, as nobody would know who plays the week 1 winners, until they were even back in town and ready to play again on Einstein). Just attempt to strategize when you have no clue of who you will actually play.
OK, there would have to be a televised production of the Championships, so the rest of those playing week 1 and back home would have viewing access as usual to the following Saturday Championship Matches. Invited Teams are rotated based on when they last played as far as week 1 or 2 at Champs (or by simple luck of the lottery draw each year).
_______________
Just throwing out some other ideas here.
We are growing, growing, GROWING! BIG Change is HERE! (So, get used to it!) Be the problem...Or.....Be the solution. Rant over.
There's my $0.32 cents after reading 815 postings in 1 single sitting.:eek:
It's not in this thread, but there's some discussion in http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136519&page=4 (start at post #48) on just what it would take to get that happening. Some square-footage requirements, some loose sizes, and throw in other stuff that needs to be handled. Good luck...
Two words...Las Vegas! (Plenty of Venues, plenty of rooms! To handle 800~1200 Teams). Planning would have to be years into the future though to secure all that would be necessary. They can handle the World series of poker & CES and much more, they can handle just about anything. You might have to break up the 8 divisions into 4 venues, then bring everyone together at say UNLV for the Championships...So what? (Schedule a 2 hr. pit move & dinner break between Divisional Awards and the BIG SHOW!) You know how much room there is between the MGM Grand and UNLV alone (just a couple of blocks from 1 another).
_________________________
As I read these 2 threads and see the doc's come out that have been circulating now for actually a few years, & the committee that was put together to explore options for the future and to deal w/ the exponential growth of FIRST & FRC & The Championships, the Finances of US First, and all that has gone into bringing back up to at least a mere 25% access to Champs attendance & future INSPIRATION OF STUDENTS, and the recent pushing for the district format, and the overall slow to change directions the community really seems to have been to adopt that format in some places still today...I wonder how much of a real shock this should have really been to that many in the actual FRC community.
Could it be "the community" has had its heads buried in the sand and or just didn't read the tea leaves (of the road map), that "management" has been leaving them? Or just doesn't really want to change...Remember HofF Teams are highly responsible for a lot of actual growth within the organization also!
And that is a GOOD THING!
______________________
What I hear is a lot of hurt feelings from some that Management left them out of the decision loop, OK that hurts a bit from well invested customers, and Really Well Invested Volunteer Mentors...Especially THE REALLY LONG INVESTED ones! (I have to talk to George Williams our 19+ year low digit Team Founding Mentor who has not taken a year off since the very start (almost 2 decades now), and see how he really feels about the issue this week...I don't even know yet, but I know whether or not the team attends/competes at Champs (We certainly are this year).....George & Crystal are there VOLUNTEERING for FIRST, with or without the team, year in, year out...EVERY YEAR! So, I'll assume until I hear differently from him, that he isn't going anywhere).
Now, just to play devils advocate here, I hear throughout the community often, FIRST (but, especially FRC), compared to a company, and the problems and solutions real companies & teams of workers within companies/industry face every day, from personell and company size, to supply chain issues & far beyond.
How many here have been with a company years (maybe decades), and 1 day find that the ownership changed overnight without a word or even a whisper, one day new management just arrives, w/ a new management team usually. Or, The Board &/or Management decides one day that something just isn't working, and MANAGEMENT DECIDES w/ little input from the workers (the labor force), that we are trying something new folks? And YOU will make it work. The customers are usually informed right after Labor and about the time the new name/logo's are released.
Management rarely if ever, asks Labor or The Customers exactly what they think before the changes are actually decided on, only afterwards how we are going to actually accomplish the tasks together, and how the new company will serve their customers even better than the old image/company.
While USFIRST is a HUGE Community Driven and Industry Sponsored... Industry, Education, and Personally Fueled Volunteer Mentor Organization....USFIRST Founded the Non-Profit Organization, organized it, and Manages it...They are MANAGEMENT (We are both the customers, and the Large Labor Base). but, THEY ARE STILL MANAGEMENT.
They did not go into this blindly...There has been a widespread COMMITTEE drawn from all angles of FIRST working on the project, and today wasn't the first time I have seen that blog post about that large committee or the Charts listing the 2 different methods of conducting Districts to Super Regionals to Championships either.....And I have only been around FIRST the last 4+ years.
They warned us months ago, THAT BIG CHANGES ARE COMING, and BIG CHANGES ARE HERE. (And they were not just talking about game design I fully realize now). We all should realize that by now.
________________________
*Nothing I am posting has anything to do with any team, anyone else, or any discussion with anyone else....Just personal ideas and observations as I read and see a wider view of both sides of the multi-pronged issues. I dislike change just as much as the next guy or gal.. Just trying to look at all sides of the issues & all views in a realistic manner, and laying emotions and ego's aside. Discussion is now the key as decisions have already been made.
Lets make things better, not worse. Deep breaths can help.
They did not go into this blindly...There has been a widespread COMMITTEE drawn from all angles of FIRST working on the project, and today wasn't the first time I have seen that blog post about that large committee or the Charts listing the 2 different methods of conducting Districts to Super Regionals to Championships either.....And I have only been around FIRST the last 4+ years.(emphasis mine) Could you cite a reference for this for me? I'm not quite sure what you're delineating as "this project", but no one I've talked to on the normal committees had input in this decision. In fact, they didn't even know about it before hand, which as you might imagine is quite problematic as it means 2015 Worlds can't be used to its fullest in terms of training/prep (leaving exactly one event, 2016 Worlds, in which to do it).
MrRoboSteve
13-04-2015, 11:00
You also are putting words in my mouth, and you are making a seriously flawed assumption to boot. I'm not expressing disbelief, I'm saying that they apparently didn't consider that particular effect of their decision. And when you look just at the team I'm affiliated with, you ignore the team(S) in my signature. If you can honestly tell me that you've never heard of at least one, you got another think comin'.
FIRST could easily have considered that effect of the decision without consulting you or the mentors you know.
The team I mentor went to Champs once, four years ago, early in my involvement in the program. My known universe of teams is those that are at regionals I attend -- teams like 525, who selected us in 2012, and 2826, who are routinely in the top ranks. I'm sorry if it's insulting to you, but I have no knowledge of any of the teams listed in your signature. I see they're quite successful. But, if I hopped in the time travel machine, moved backwards a couple weeks to the last regional I was at, and asked random mentors in the pits about those three teams, it would be interesting to see who would be aware of them.
Based on the history of those teams you've been affiliated with, it's likely that you're well connected in the "mentor of successful team" community. Note that I've never disputed your points about mentor response to the change.
I hope you can accept that your experience in FRC is both meaningful and unrepresentative of teams as a whole. One goal I have in in participating in this thread and its siblings is not to impose my point of view on others -- in fact, if you look through my posts, you'll find little to identify what my actual opinion is about this change. That is intentional.
Another goal I have is to get posters to think about their assumptions, to separate fact from opinion, to get them to think about the problem from the point of view of someone in a different situation. Only then will they have a sense of the tradeoffs that FIRST HQ is trying to make.
There's also a learning opportunity here for team members (and mentors) about how to deal with change, and how to advocate for change with decisionmakers in an organizational context like FIRST. No matter whether you participate in a FIRST program, go to one of the competing programs, or decide to create your own, any moderately successful program will soon have a set of decisionmakers, independent of teams, who are charged with balancing tradeoffs to make the program a success. The decisionmakers need to balance the needs of participants, volunteers, sponsors, and others. You might think that they are unconstrained in their decisionmaking choices, but I think you'd be surprised at how constrained their options really are, given their organizational mission, the resources they have available, and the multiple constituencies they work to satisfy.
Compare pages 4-5 of the FIRST Annual Report (http://www.usfirst.org/annual-report/#4-5) to page 5 of the BEST Annual Report. (http://www.bestinc.org/documents/Current_BEST_Annual_Report.pdf) There's a reason why both programs measure their success along the same lines -- number of teams and number of volunteers. FIRST (or BEST, or the VEX competitions) are ecosystems, and you need the right combination of resources to make them successful. The organizations work both to optimize the set of resources, and define what success looks like to them. Think about the relative success of FTC since it started, and the discussion that must cause at BEST about whether their free-to-teams tactic is the right choice going forward.
I'm also trying to convince people to tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric, and focus instead on making the best of the situation. Something made FIRST think that splitting Champs was the best choice for those years. I can't believe that they made the decision stupidly, or uncaringly, or lightly, without considering the tradeoffs.
It would, however, mean that I would reach out to those mentors either before or immediately following with a very detailed reasoning why the change was being made, and why it was being made in the way that it was. There's a difference between that and the method HQ used... It would also mean that I would be taking that change very seriously, not lightly. I would be making sure that I had as much information as I could before making the decision.
They announced the decision two weeks before the largest annual F2F gathering in the FIRST calendar. They have positioned the announcement so that they can hear directly from people immediately afterward. I heard on another thread that they were at the FiM District champs last weekend, and there's no lack of long-time teams there (http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on/event/13321/teams?ProgramCode=FRC&sort=asc&order=Team%20Number) from which to get feedback in person. If they wanted to bury this, they picked pretty much the worst time of year to do so.
It would also mean that I would be taking that change very seriously, not lightly.
A final goal I have in these threads is to get people to speak precisely about what they mean, and that's why I'm asking clarifying questions about your statements. Does your statement above mean that you think FIRST is not taking the change seriously?
MrRoboSteve
13-04-2015, 11:06
(emphasis mine) Could you cite a reference for this for me? I'm not quite sure what you're delineating as "this project", but no one I've talked to on the normal committees had input in this decision. In fact, they didn't even know about it before hand, which as you might imagine is quite problematic as it means 2015 Worlds can't be used to its fullest in terms of training/prep (leaving exactly one event, 2016 Worlds, in which to do it).
A lot of people have seen decks similar to this (http://www.slideshare.net/ne-first/ne-first-town-hall-meetings-ct). If you are planning a migration from the competition model in slide 6 to the one in slide 7, it is difficult to do in one season. The proposed North/South model for 2017 would make a good transition between the two.
MrJohnston
13-04-2015, 11:08
Please bear with me: I think I am about to get overly loquacious.
The mission of FIRST is to "inspire." FRC is a vehicle FIRST uses to that end. FIRST wants to inspire as many people (students, families, friends, acquaintances, etc.) as possible so as to bring an aura of "cool" to STEM education - and FRC does just this beautifully. However, as FIRST has grown we find ourselves dealing with a contradiction: Though FIRST strives to maximize the number of folks it inspires, the "competition" in FRC strives to narrow the field. As I float the the many pages of thoughts, ideas and I suggestions, it seems that the question that stands at the center is: "Are we about competition or inclusion?" At some point, one of these two has to give.
The reason FRC works so well is that it embraces certain aspects of our culture so as to promote something (STEM) that is not universally embraced by teenagers or, even, many adults in our society. It is the competition that gets the public to the events. It is the competition that brings excitement to our schools. It is the competition that pushes every team to do better each year. It is the competition that compels us to learn. Let's face it: in the very nature of our capitalistic society is competition. And, for good or ill, we demand a winner. We have a (rather illogical) need to always be able to name the "best" team, athlete, whatever. Every competition we know and admire has a "winner." If we take this away from FRC, we lose something that is at the very heart of the program.
At the same time, many of the teams that attend Champs are the same every year. The Championship does not really help FIRST to attain its goals if most of the same teams come back from year to year. In fact, nearly every team (and their families and communities) at the Championship each year is already "inspired." The Championship is just the icing on the cake. It's the proof of a good year at competition.
In other words, though an incredible event and a great experience, the Championship is necessary for FRC, but not for FIRST. Dividing it into two events or even making it so big that a huge percentage of teams can qualify seems to weaken the impact of the event for those that do qualify - not to mention create some legitimate logistical nightmares for those trying to travel with last-minute preparations!
The notion that we could have another layer of "championship" after these two events is not feasible. Either it would have to be another huge event or it would be a major letdown after the previous week's (month's?) championship events. Moreover, I just shelled out over $60K in order to get my team to St. Louis - and only 1/3 of the team is attending. If we were to have a second event requiring airfare and missed school: 1) We would not be able to afford it; 2) Way too many students would have to skip out due to excessive missed school; 3) My school district would question why we have to have two championship events requiring long-distance travel when most teams don't have any and 4) My wife would kill me. Robotics events take me away from my family for an entire weekend - and leave me recovering for another day. And, of course, there is the pre-event preparations. To me, this seems excessive when we are talking about teams who are already 'inspire' to excel. (Had they not been so inspired, they would have either not put enough of a robot together so as to qualify in the first place or, had they gotten "lucky" would have not shelled out the cash to go. Do not a large number of teams turn down their bids to Champs each year already?)
It seems to me that, if FIRST is hoping to "spread the inspiration," it really needs to be targeting the teams that don't qualify for district championships or only tend to attend one regional event. I recently attending the PNW Championships and I believe I can safely say that all of those teams were inspired. It's the large number of teams who did not qualify for the event and are in danger of collapsing that need the extra boost.
So, I would propose that the extra efforts to "inspire" more teams should be handled on a more localized level. Some ideas:
* Increase the percentage of teams that qualify for district championships. The PNW championship was a huge spectacle. Let's get more of the "borderline" teams to these events: They can do it without having to cough up airfare and with fewer missed days of school. They might even be able to get more of their families to attend. There is plenty of inspiration for those teams.
* Add a second "district-wide" event for the "almost" qualifiers. Give them a chance to compete and win with all the pomp of a championship event without having to face all the power-house teams that blew them out at districts. If this is held on a different weekend than the district championships, you just might be able to get some of the powerhouse teams to lead really good seminars. Then, invite (and pay for!) mentors from the teams that did not qualify to watch the events, walk the pits and attend the seminars.
* Keep Champs exclusive - 600 teams really should be plenty. The teams who qualify - or come close - are already "inspired." Keep the event special, but put effort into helping more teams be able to complete for that qualification. For instance, a "price" of winning champs should be having a FIRST video crew interview the mentors and leadership students on the winning alliance about how they got there - everything from their training, to their design process, to the technical specs of the robot, etc. Post these online and send the links out to every team in FRC. Le't all learn from the best - not just the teams that can afford to go to St. Louis (or Houston, or Detroit, or wherever).
drwisley
13-04-2015, 11:48
Since you’re listening: For nearly a decade, I've been motivated by the competition and sport of FRC. Like many engineers, I spent a childhood of never really fitting in. High school, especially, catered to athletes and extraverts for most social development. I competed in band and orchestra, but nothing was celebrated in comparison to sports.
What has drawn me to FRC, not FIRST, has been the ability to take students, which resemble my former awkwardness, on a journey of greatness. Demonstrating to them every day, that it’s cool to be brilliant and investing in their mind will result in an amazing and fruitful life. That, in the not so distant future, we nerds do prevail. We find beautiful spouses, many friends, make lots of money and raise lots of cool little nerds of our own.
Decades ago, Dean recognized that the sports model worked. It motivated me and it motivated our students in a new direction. Moving towards the participation model demotivates me. Before FRC, I volunteered for SAE's A World in Motion, mildly. However, FRC has motivated me to involve my entire family, most of my friends and to spend 5 to 7 hundred hours a year motivating the kids. The hours I have put in are crazy, but I want to beat or compete with the best in the world, and the kids win, regardless.
This is because, FRC has given each team a progression model, and a culture that enables your team to progress and become better each year, working towards an ultimate goal of world champion or world chairman’s recipient.
Four months ago, I moved 4500 miles to England, and now I watch and chat with my team from a far. From my new perspective, I see a much larger issue to expanding FRC, broadcasting. Expanding FRC, or FIRST, would be drastically improved through broadcasting. It’s absolutely ridiculous how little the webcasts have improved in my decade. I have to walk up to the big screen and point to robots (when explaining FRC and the game), whilst consistently being interrupted by commercials at most regionals. I don’t get it. National Spelling Bees are broadcasted on ESPN and I can barely see my team on the big screen at home.
We’ve definitely expanded past the days where teams were intended to ‘buy in’ every 4 years. I personally never allowed my team to ‘buy in’, because when you earn your way in it’s truly gratifying. However, consider solving the problem of having all students experiencing championship, through improved broadcasting.
I’ll close with this: You won’t lose me as a mentor, because I’ve already left the country for five years, but you have made it impossible for me to even consider starting an FRC team in North East England. Thanks for listening.
A lot of people have seen decks similar to this (http://www.slideshare.net/ne-first/ne-first-town-hall-meetings-ct). If you are planning a migration from the competition model in slide 6 to the one in slide 7, it is difficult to do in one season. The proposed North/South model for 2017 would make a good transition between the two.I understand that you see it as a 'good transition', and I understand why. However, FIRST has been quite open about the difficulty of Slide 6 to 7 for many years now. To the best of my knowledge (someone correct me), splitting Worlds was never floated. I see people draw their line of what to consider reasonable unilateral latitude at different places. I'll present my reasoning and agree to disagree:
This method has led to completely blindsiding many [majority position unknown] people best positioned to positively contribute to the change. This includes both those who are personally opposed to content and method of the decision, and more notably those who now have the legitimate problem of "how do we actually make both of these events as inspirational as possible with only 2016 Worlds as a true preparation?" (The announcement being so close to 2015's that it cannot be fully utilized for this purpose.) I do not personally understand why HQ would do this or what upside they were looking for. I understand that they can of course, just not why they would. Moreover, the split was announced entirely as corporate "spin" (or insert a positive term), with exactly zero attempt to preemptively discover or address community objections and get people on board. Again, particularly in light of the first issue, I don't understand this choice. Both results are directly antithetical to all of our goals.
This is not to say that the community as a whole or myself individually have taken this in the most productive way possible. (Though I argue expressing upset is productive in this instance, if only to illustrate the cost another such action would entail.) But failure on the part of the community does not absolve HQ of not taking its own helpful action. Perhaps this split is correct. I am personally working to make it a positive experience. But this process have given me me very, very little confidence in its reasoning and management.
BrennanB
13-04-2015, 14:06
I don't actually buy the FLL and the FTC angles, as most~ if not all of those younger participants (if we all continue to do our jobs right, and continue to INSPIRE THEM), will also have that 4 year window of opportunity when in High School to experience attendance of at least 1 FIRST Championship event or more, if the recently unveiled plan works.
"Don't worry about qualifying for champs due to ridiculously small percentages of qualifying teams because there's always next year"
"They are young, it's okay for them to lose chances they could have, they have time"
These are bad arguments. Not all FLL students go to FRC.
If we are expanding champs for FRC, we absolutely must expand for FLL and FTC.
MrRoboSteve
13-04-2015, 15:12
However, FIRST has been quite open about the difficulty of Slide 6 to 7 for many years now. To the best of my knowledge (someone correct me), splitting Worlds was never floated. I see people draw their line of what to consider reasonable unilateral latitude at different places.
I think this is a key observation about the situation FIRST found themselves in -- that there's no obviously superior transition between the current model and slide 7. There are factors, not all of which are visible to us, that cause them to move away from slide 6 in 2017.
When I said "good transition" in an earlier post, what I meant was that it was a transition that would merit consideration (a "good choice"), not that it was the best choice. If I was making the presentation for the town hall meeting, I'd be sure to discuss that and what other options were considered.
"Why this decision now?" is another good question for the town hall meeting.
(emphasis mine) Could you cite a reference for this for me? I'm not quite sure what you're delineating as "this project", but no one I've talked to on the normal committees had input in this decision. In fact, they didn't even know about it before hand, which as you might imagine is quite problematic as it means 2015 Worlds can't be used to its fullest in terms of training/prep (leaving exactly one event, 2016 Worlds, in which to do it).
Give me a few hrs. to sleep (NM, I'll just go search for it now)...It was linked back to Frank's Blog from "the longest thread" here somewhere near the 700 or so post mark as I remember.
The Committee Names List was over 6" long (ending w/ Franks..."and Me")....I will locate it as soon as I can, and both PM the link to you, and post it back on this thread requoting you. It did not specifically say anything about splitting Championship into 2...But more about looking toward the future and dealing with growth issues and the like.
Off on the hunt, BB soon.
Give me a few hrs. to sleep (NM, I'll just go search for it now)...It was linked back to Frank's Blog from "the longest thread" here somewhere near the 700 or so post mark as I remember.
The Committee Names List was over 6" long (ending w/ Franks..."and Me")....I will locate it as soon as I can, and both PM the link to you, and post it back on this thread requoting you. It did not specifically say anything about splitting Championship into 2...But more about looking toward the future and dealing with growth issues and the like.
Off on the hunt, BB soon.I can think of this one (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-new-frc-standard-district-points-ranking-system-2014) and this one (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-2015-first-championship-and-beyond-eligibility), which were the ones I was thinking about and I am describing in the post. One's about Districts the other is 2015 Championship eligibility. The latter is closer to the topic at hand, but was not used for the "this project". (I won't detail the 'who' in terms of who's clarified they didn't know, but I feel this is important enough to say in generality. If someone involved objects to this level of detail, please tell me.) Perhaps the makeup of the task force did change without affecting representation. If this is the case, it would be very good to know. I am not personally appreciative of HQ's closed lips about this even after the fact.
(emphasis mine) Could you cite a reference for this for me? I'm not quite sure what you're delineating as "this project", but no one I've talked to on the normal committees had input in this decision. In fact, they didn't even know about it before hand, which as you might imagine is quite problematic as it means 2015 Worlds can't be used to its fullest in terms of training/prep (leaving exactly one event, 2016 Worlds, in which to do it).
___________________________________________
Found it, sry I was way off on the post count (post 624...Hey after 900+ posts read in a single sitting to hit within 76 posts wasn't actually too bad, 703 was the start of the Town Hall Thread Link!), and the actual Committee Subject was "2015 Championship (and beyond) Eligibility" Blog Posting...Then read down a bit further to the post after that....The "Beyond" part.
Yes, you had to read a bit between the lines...But, the tea leaves (and that's all they were...nothing but road signs.....Were there.
_______________________________________________
http://community.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-2015-FIRST-Championship-and-beyond-Eligibility
________________________________Reprinted below for direct reference.
2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Blog Date: Friday, August 22, 2014 - 11:18.
As I said in an earlier blog, we have had a task force working on Championship eligibility for FRC. The members of this task force are as follows, in no particular order:
•Jamee Luce – Districts Representative
•Dennis Hughes – Mentor for Team RUSH, 2014 Chairman’s Award Winner
•Lane Matheson – 2014 Woodie Flowers Award Winner
•Naomi Mancuso – FIRST Operations (Customer Service)
•Jen McManus – FIRST Finance
•Cindy Stong – Chief Judge Advisor
•Dana Henry – FIRST Senior Mentor
•Teri Benart – FIRST Senior Mentor
•Connie Haynes – FIRST Regional Director
•Collin Fultz – FRC Team Advocate
•Me
I want to thank the task force members for all their hard work. We’re not quite done yet – see below – but we’ve made significant strides. We have, however, completed our work for changes to the 2015 FRC Championship eligibility. As a reminder, you can find information about the 2014 eligibility rules here. If no change to the 2014 rules is noted below, the 2014 rules will still hold.
Also, Districts will be getting the number of available Championship slots (total Championship capacity less the number of pre-qualified teams) proportional to their percentage representation in all FRC. As an example, if a District has 10% of the teams in FRC, they will be getting 10% of the available slots. This is similar to what was done last year, but this year, the allocation will be done on current season - 2015 - team counts. Districts will still be using the points-and-awards system to determine Championship eligibility, as they have been.
Wild Card Changes for 2015
Unlike in prior years, any team arriving at a Regional who has already earned a Championship spot, and ends up on the Winning Alliance at that Regional, or earns an award at that Regional that would make them eligible for Championship, will generate a Wild Card slot. As an example, if a Hall of Fame team (who is pre-qualified for Championship before the season starts) ends up on the Winning Alliance, that will now generate a Wild Card slot for the Finalist Alliance. Or, as another example, a team that is on the Winning Alliance at one Regional, then wins the Engineering Inspiration Award at a later Regional, will generate a Wild Card slot at the later Regional.
Also, if a team at a Regional earns the right to attend Championship through two accomplishments at the same event, for example, being on the Winning Alliance and earning Chairman’s Award, that will also generate a Wild Card slot.
These rule changes are cumulative. So, if a team who already has earned a slot at Championship attends a Regional and is both on the Winning Alliance and wins a Championship qualifying award, like Engineering Inspiration, that team will generate two Wild Card slots. And will get a congratulatory phone call from POTUS, as they clearly rock.*
If you think this through, you will find that, in most cases, this means that Regionals will be making 6 new, unique teams eligible for Championship attendance. One important caveat – Wild Cards recipients will still be limited to the Finalist Alliance. If more Wild Cards are generated than can be absorbed by the Finalist Alliance, those Wild Cards will still go unused and can’t be backfilled or replaced.
This is good news, right? I think it’s good news. But I’m sure you’ll let me know.
Waitlist Changes for 2015
With the increase in team capacity at the 2015 FIRST Championship, even with the increase in Wild Card availability outlined above, we expect to be able to offer a good number of Waitlist slots in 2015. To support our interest in the fair distribution of these slots, and to provide greater opportunity for teams that haven’t attended in a few years, we are making some changes.
Waitlist slots will no longer be first come first served, as they have been – essentially – in prior years. When teams sign up for the Waitlist will no longer matter, as long as they sign up during the time the Waitlist is open.
Also, teams will be selected randomly from the Waitlist, with the number of chances they have of being selected equal to the number of years they have missed attending Championship. As an example, if a team on the 2015 waitlist last attended Championship in 2012, that team has ‘missed’ Championship twice, and so will have their number ‘put in the hat’** twice. If a team on the 2015 waitlist last attended Championship in 2004, they have ‘missed’ Championship 10 times, and will have their number put in the hat 10 times.*** Teams who have never been to Championship will be considered as missing every year they have been a team. You will note this means that teams who attended Championship in 2014 will not be eligible for selection from the Waitlist. As a practical matter, though, since for several years Waitlist sign-ups for teams attending the prior year Championship have been later than those who had not attended the prior year, we rarely – if ever – have ended up inviting those prior-year teams anyway. One final note – teams must have participated in FRC during all their ‘missed’ years for those years to count in this system. As an example, for a team that participated in FRC in 2002, then did not participate again until 2005, we would only look back to 2005 in determining Championships missed.
Rookie All Star Changes for 2015
This is less of a change and more of a fine-tuning that we wanted to let you know about. Rookie All Star winners at Regionals, and District Championships, will still be offered a slot at Championship. However, we have noticed that at nearly every Regional, regardless of the number of Rookies present, Rookie All Star gets awarded. It has become more of an ‘automatic’ award then was intended. We will be working with the Judge Advisors this season to help clarify the standards for this award. We love having Rookies at Championship, and we absolutely want to recognize the many outstanding Rookies we have every year, but winning an award that makes a team eligible for Championship should be a big deal, and we want to keep it meaningful. We don’t expect, or desire, a significant drop in the number of Rookie All Star awards presented, but you may see a few more Regionals not presenting Rookie All Star award than you have in the past, and this will be the reason.
This issue is not a concern at District Championships, as Rookie All Stars selected there have already had to pass through a selection gate at the District level, and only one or two Rookie All Stars from each District as a whole are selected to go to the FIRST Championship.
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.
Frank
* I’m joking about that call.
** No actual hat will be used. We think.
*** Yes, this is the Hunger Games model, but you’re getting invited to an awesome party instead of near-certain death. No, you may not ‘volunteer as tribute’, wise guys.
_________________________________________
Looks to me by that last part, they fully thought it over as a fully formed task force...And this was the decided on result...Not to decrease slots in the future as we outgrow 1 single site, but to increase Championship Slots as Growth is predicted to increase beyond a certain line in the sand that 1 site cannot possibly service all, and still hit the goal of 25% FRC Team participation (hitting that goal of at least once having each High Schooler have an opportunity to be inspired at The Championships!)
**I have no actual factual or personal knowledge of whether it came down that exact way or not, but I'll bet that is as good a guess as any. (I'm usually pretty good at reading tea leaves)...Especially after Frank's recent Blog Posts. He pretty much spells it all out as much. At least the decisions that were reached.
FIRST could easily have considered that effect of the decision without consulting you or the mentors you know. If they did, they showed no evidence. I'll explain that farther down.
I'm sorry if it's insulting to you, but I have no knowledge of any of the teams listed in your signature. I see they're quite successful. Only one is still in existence: 330, BeachBots. (Other than the team I currently mentor--1197, Torbots.) I might suggest playing Fantasy FIRST next year; it'll greatly broaden your teams horizon. I attend local regionals and I know those teams--but I know other teams, or know OF other teams, from either their (long-past) travels out this way, or through Fantasy FIRST, or through discussions on Chief.
Based on the history of those teams you've been affiliated with, it's likely that you're well connected in the "mentor of successful team" community. . Right conclusion, wrong reasoning. The "well connected" part is because I've been on CD for quite a while.
A final goal I have in these threads is to get people to speak precisely about what they mean, and that's why I'm asking clarifying questions about your statements. Does your statement above mean that you think FIRST is not taking the change seriously? No: It means that they really give that appearance.
Let me put it this way: You're thinking about some major life change that will affect you, your family, and your friends. You know that that change will be a difficult one. Do you make it without talking to at least some of your friends? What about your extended family? How about your immediate family? If you're like most people, you'll talk to both sets of family, at least to say "hey, I'm considering this" (and for immediate family, some serious discussion would naturally ensue). And the vast majority of people will also at least mention it to their close friends (not necessarily acquaintances, and maybe not even distant relatives). If you just make the decision without talking to your immediate family, you probably didn't give the decision the weight it deserved. Probably. It might have taken a while to reach that decision, but it still looks like you didn't give it enough weight to consult others, when maybe it should have.
And that's exactly what appears to have happened here: There was no outside discussion. The usual folks who'd be the first in line to know before the decision came out knew NOTHING, at least that's what I've been picking up via the grapevine. In the districts case some years back, some folks from both HQ and MI said "Oh, yeah, we've been quietly discussing this for this long". This time? "I heard nothing", all across the board. FIRST could have been considering this since 2011, for all we know--and yet, nobody heard anything. Not even folks who'd be generally counted in the "family" part of that example I gave. That means that no matter how much weight was given the decision, the appearance is that it was somewhat spur-of-the-moment (which I'm fairly certain it wasn't). For that matter, there wasn't a hint that venue contracts were under consideration, and usually there is something somewhere.
evanperryg
13-04-2015, 20:55
-- Sorry about Detroit and Houston. Seen their tourism numbers? They suck. We are a big deal. We will get you cheap rooms and we got a cheap venue, you won and we won and we inspire together!
Sorry CD, time is over for the denial, move to the next stage of acceptance.
Not that St. Louis is a particularly attractive, either. Actually, downtown Detroit is far less pothole-ridden than St. Louis, in my experience. :yikes:
You're right that there isn't much we can do, even with the most pointed arguments against the new format. I'd like to see a long-term plan explaining why FIRST is going to this new format. I know about the super-regional format, but it's be nice to see a more defined year-to-year plan for the competition, not just the venues.
Frank is about as straight up as a man comes (Never met him, but read enough of his writings to know by now)...As transparent as they come, says what he means, means what he says...and very articulate in his writings (unlike myself).
(It isn't paranoid if there is possible evidence, facts, & truth to it!)
USFIRST & FIRST FRC/FTC/FLL was faced w/ a BIG ROCK, Big Hard Spot, pretty much no win situation (take away hard earned, special award slots, in the future HofF down to Rookie AllStars...Just imagine what the response to that would have been), or go more inclusionary to fit the FIRST vision of inspiring and rewarding, & it is no doubt Contract signing time again.
Re-read his "We're Listening" posting again, parse every word and sentence. He says it all! nothing should be misconstrued...Now, just constructive dialogue is all that is necessary. (and a little bit of understanding and reasonableness on all sides....Their side already shows much willingness to meet halfway.
But, certain things are absolutely necessary at this juncture is all. CHANGE is coming....CHANGE IS HERE!
How more prepared could they actually make us?
And folks...Bidness is Bidness...We don't guarantee the Champs Venue Contracts w/ our bank accounts!
___________________
Everything you need to know was spelled out in that August 14 Blog post, The Release, and The "We're Listening" Post,....It cannot be more plain or honest than those 3 postings about the current situation...And how it can be fixed...To a reasonable degree that is to assure both Inspirational & Rewarding.
__________________________
Addition:
Sry, I used the wrong wording...There is no their side (and no our side)...It is ONLY OUR SIDE TOGETHER!
For that matter, there wasn't a hint that venue contracts were under consideration, and usually there is something somewhere.
Actually when the annoucement was made that CMP was moving to St Louis they did note that it was a 3 year contract. Later they announced that they were unable to find a suitable alternative and would extend that contract with St Louis one more year, which was for last season. Finally they announced that they had reached an agreement to have St Louis host CMP for 3 more years. So there were hints that venue contracts were up for bid. Granted that gave no clue that they were going to have a second CMP location for the final year of that contract. They also hinted that at current growth rates that even the expansion at St Louis would not allow them to keep up with the growth without a change to how teams are qualified. Again that doesn't hint specifically at two CMPs.
I do not for an instant believe that FIRST did not give full consideration before making this choice.
Actually when the annoucement was made that CMP was moving to St Louis they did note that it was a 3 year contract. Later they announced that they were unable to find a suitable alternative and would extend that contract with St Louis one more year, which was for last season. Finally they announced that they had reached an agreement to have St Louis host CMP for 3 more years. So there were hints that venue contracts were up for bid. Granted that gave no clue that they were going to have a second CMP location for the final year of that contract. They also hinted that at current growth rates that even the expansion at St Louis would not allow them to keep up with the growth without a change to how teams are qualified. Again that doesn't hint specifically at two CMPs.
I do not for an instant believe that FIRST did not give full consideration before making this choice.
________________________________________________
Lets for a minute look back at an August 2014 Blog Post by Frank
Upper part about 2015 Champs snipped off-----
________
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.
Frank
1. We will be soon overbooked.
2. There is a Task Force handling the issue, not a Committee.
3. Task Forces handle large items, Committes usually lesser important items.
4. We just may have to curtail Auto Award entries/berths (HoF~RookieAllStars). Imagine those results folks! (The Rock...)
5. We want to be fair. We will let you know more in OCTOBER...That info never came in October, they were probably in Contract Negotiations by then, or at least a bidding process maybe. But, the info did come and was fully explained by Post & Video, and now more coming.
6. We will detail THE RESULTS of these IMPORTANT DECISIONS WHEN THE INFO IS RELEASED!
7. Nowhere did they say they would be asking the community for input, or opinions, or anything. It appears to be a FIRST Decision w/ full and fair warning.
8. Usual Contract time is here (Hard Place...).
9. The man and his team cannot be more straight up...Say what they mean, mean what they say, and willing to work with the passionate community within reason.
**Opinion only, I feel more were just concerned (if paying attention at all in August), last August about how the 2015 Championship Eligibility applied to their teams, than reading about "The Longer Term- Changes" part.
I do remember reading it...Then again last night someone else posted the link and I read it again...LIGHTBULB! Oh, that's straight up. And now many affected either way are quite upset about it.
Lastly...To ask for community input (where potential loss of high award auto berths are concerned ~anybody involved in any team could potentially be affected), would actually put forth a potential set of conflict(s) of interest(s). If it appears so, rest assured, it usually is. Or, will be conceived to be by someone,...somewhere.
Actually when the annoucement was made that CMP was moving to St Louis they did note that it was a 3 year contract. Later they announced that they were unable to find a suitable alternative and would extend that contract with St Louis one more year, which was for last season. Finally they announced that they had reached an agreement to have St Louis host CMP for 3 more years. So there were hints that venue contracts were up for bid. Granted that gave no clue that they were going to have a second CMP location for the final year of that contract. They also hinted that at current growth rates that even the expansion at St Louis would not allow them to keep up with the growth without a change to how teams are qualified. Again that doesn't hint specifically at two CMPs.
I do not for an instant believe that FIRST did not give full consideration before making this choice.
________________________
Of course they did, and the didn't want to punish those they actually reward for growing the organization, due to said growth. And they want to inspire every High School Student w/ at least a chance to be inspired by attending at least 1 Championships in their high School years. You can plan for growth all you want, but, if your Organization does a really great job...It will sneak up on you quickly when you must sign venues years out. (Rock/Hard Place).
Siri,
I agree with staying away from that kind of detail...They probably couldn't discuss it if they even knew, and wanted to. (Non-disclosure agreements and all, you know). Those are usually rock solid and highly, swiftly enforced. (No comment, or I know nothing!)
The looking at direct post community informative evidence was pretty easy in hindsight though (Oh WOW! Bing!). All the facts were laid out, just not the exact details, until as promised, when the VERY HARD decisions were finally made, and the ink was almost dry.
The response came, they heard the passionate crowd, they will work w/ the community..Nuff said. Sleepy time.
The looking at direct post community informative evidence was pretty easy in hindsight though (Oh WOW! Bing!). All the facts were laid out, just not the exact details, until as promised, when the VERY HARD decisions were finally made, and the ink was almost dry.
Hindsight is 20/20, remember. Have YOU solved any game hints prior to Kickoff? Neither have I. They're pretty obvious, you know, but only after the game is revealed. What does "5 bots tangling with pasta/ A game piece obsessed with a shovel's show/And seeing Montana's green heights" mean to you? Well, for someone familiar with the 2006 game, it's pretty obvious. Very obvious, in fact--someone actually guessed the second line right away before knowing the game. But if you knew nothing about that game, you'd get all confused. (For that matter, you could show us a scored game piece and we'd go all crazy with a number in the middle of the picture if it was cropped enough--2007's hint.)
I think when most people saw that blog post, they were thinking that the panel would be sticking to CMP qualifying (and, BTW... no change was announced in October; I'm guessing it just took a bit longer than planned, and there might have been some announcement to that effect). This is NOT CMP qualifying, folks! This is a new CMP--or whatever it is, as long as you don't try to call it a world championship. (Admittedly, there is historical precedent: try the Constitutional Convention, called to fix the Articles of Confederation, which eventually threw them out and started over, for one example.)
So please: Don't go saying "You missed this! It's obvious!". Try "We missed this, looks like we need to read more carefully in future".
Michael Corsetto
14-04-2015, 02:25
Hindsight is 20/20, remember. Have YOU solved any game hints prior to Kickoff? Neither have I. They're pretty obvious, you know, but only after the game is revealed. What does "5 bots tangling with pasta/ A game piece obsessed with a shovel's show/And seeing Montana's green heights" mean to you? Well, for someone familiar with the 2006 game, it's pretty obvious. Very obvious, in fact--someone actually guessed the second line right away before knowing the game. But if you knew nothing about that game, you'd get all confused. (For that matter, you could show us a scored game piece and we'd go all crazy with a number in the middle of the picture if it was cropped enough--2007's hint.)
I think when most people saw that blog post, they were thinking that the panel would be sticking to CMP qualifying (and, BTW... no change was announced in October; I'm guessing it just took a bit longer than planned, and there might have been some announcement to that effect). This is NOT CMP qualifying, folks! This is a new CMP--or whatever it is, as long as you don't try to call it a world championship. (Admittedly, there is historical precedent: try the Constitutional Convention, called to fix the Articles of Confederation, which eventually threw them out and started over, for one example.)
So please: Don't go saying "You missed this! It's obvious!". Try "We missed this, looks like we need to read more carefully in future".
Actually, going back to the blog post cglrcng referenced (thanks for digging that up!), I'm not sure Frank adequately followed up on his word.
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.
On the list of "task-force members", I see two FRC mentors, a number of senior mentors, and our former FRC Team Advocate. It is worth mentioning that Teri Benart is no longer Senior Mentor in Northern California, and Collin Fultz is no longer FRC Team Advocate. If this is the case, who made this decision? And even smaller, select group?
A fair assessment of the quoted paragraph would lead the reader to believe that FRC was seriously pursuing cutting down on the eligibility as a method for sustaining the current CMP format. I remember reading this blog, agreeing with the proposed course of action, and expecting some modified criteria for CMP eligibility in the future.
As we all know, FIRST HQ made an announcement last week that is not line with this assessment. In fact, this decision appears to go in a distinctly opposite direction from the implied direction in this blog post.
I'm unsure how I could have read into this closer and been more proactive in expressing my displeasure for a "Championsplit" before the announcement last week. If I would have known, I would have lobbied to my local FRC staff much earlier this year.
-Mike
Alex2614
14-04-2015, 02:38
Actually, going back to the blog post cglrcng referenced (thanks for digging that up!), I'm not sure Frank adequately followed up on his word.
On the list of "task-force members", I see two FRC mentors, a number of senior mentors, and our former FRC Team Advocate. It is worth mentioning that Teri Benart is no longer Senior Mentor in Northern California, and Collin Fultz is no longer FRC Team Advocate. If this is the case, who made this decision? And even smaller, select group?
A fair assessment of the quoted paragraph would lead the reader to believe that FRC was seriously pursuing cutting down on the eligibility as a method for sustaining the current CMP format. I remember reading this blog, agreeing with the proposed course of action, and expecting some modified criteria for CMP eligibility in the future.
As we all know, FIRST HQ made an announcement last week that is not line with this assessment. In fact, this decision appears to go in a distinctly opposite direction from the implied direction in this blog post.
I'm unsure how I could have read into this closer and been more proactive in expressing my displeasure for a "Championsplit" before the announcement last week. If I would have known, I would have lobbied to my local FRC staff much earlier this year.
-Mike
Maybe FIRST is suspecting further growth, and thus still having sustainability problems even with the championsplit. It's not necessarily going against what he said in the fall. Think about how much FRC has grown in the last 5-10 years. Think about how much further we will have grown in 5-10 years from now. Maybe they realized that even if they cut down on eligibility, they would still be running into capacity problems.
All of the discussions about the percentages of teams represented at the championsplit are using this year's numbers. If FIRST keeps up the exponential growth precedent of the last 20 years, this may be the case.
It may not seem like it now, but it is possible that FIRST is doing whatever they can to prepare for the future and allow some breathing room. It's possible that this solution is temporary until districts become more universal. It's possible that in 5-10 years, FIRST will be twice as big as we are now. And there may come a time when even if we only brig the winning alliances from the regionals and DCMPs we will outgrow the current model.
Also take into consideration the fact that FTC and FLL are growing much more rapidly than FRC last time I checked. So that may play into effect here too. FIRST really wants all of the programs to be represented (and I do too - I vehemently oppose splitting up FLL FTC and FRC into different champs), so remember it is not just about us.
Michael Corsetto
14-04-2015, 02:50
Maybe FIRST is suspecting further growth, and thus still having sustainability problems even with the championsplit. It's not necessarily going against what he said in the fall. Think about how much FRC has grown in the last 5-10 years. Think about how much further we will have grown in 5-10 years from now. Maybe they realized that even if they cut down on eligibility, they would still be running into capacity problems.
All of the discussions about the percentages of teams represented at the championsplit are using this year's numbers. If FIRST keeps up the exponential growth precedent of the last 20 years, this may be the case.
It may not seem like it now, but it is possible that FIRST is doing whatever they can to prepare for the future and allow some breathing room. It's possible that this solution is temporary until districts become more universal. It's possible that in 5-10 years, FIRST will be twice as big as we are now. And there may come a time when even if we only brig the winning alliances from the regionals and DCMPs we will outgrow the current model.
Also take into consideration the fact that FTC and FLL are growing much more rapidly than FRC last time I checked. So that may play into effect here too. FIRST really wants all of the programs to be represented (and I do too - I vehemently oppose splitting up FLL FTC and FRC into different champs), so remember it is not just about us.
I never said they went against their word. I proposed that:
1) Frank has not followed up on his word (to "detail the reasons for our decisions when the information is released")
2) FIRST HQ made an announcement last week that went in a different direction than the items discussed in the August 22nd, 2014 blog post.
The speculation in your post may or may not be true, but they are not a precise response to the main thought of my post. I simply aimed to highlight the discrepancy in Frank and FIRST's communication and allow discussion to come from that.
Thanks for reading and responding, I'll try to be clearer in the future.
-Mike
George Nishimura
14-04-2015, 02:58
Frank's Blog Post from above opposes the reasoning for having two championships. To compare, in the reasoning for having two championships they said they wanted more teams to attend because of its transformative experience. In last year's blog post, he speaks of "cutting eligibility" and re-enforcing that the RAS does not become an "automatic bid" to championship for regionals with very few rookies. If the long-term goal was to give more teams a transformative experience, isn't a rookie team a fantastic candidate?
I don't see how people are reading the blog post and seeing this announcement, except the realisation that the current structure is unsustainable, which has always been known.
Alex2614
14-04-2015, 02:58
I never said they went against their word. I proposed that:
1) Frank has not followed up on his word (to "detail the reasons for our decisions when the information is released")
2) FIRST HQ made an announcement last week that went in a different direction than the items discussed in the August 22nd, 2014 blog post.
The speculation in your post may or may not be true, but they are not a precise response to the main thought of my post. I simply aimed to highlight the discrepancy in Frank and FIRST's communication and allow discussion to come from that.
Thanks for reading and responding, I'll try to be clearer in the future.
-Mike
Thank you for your clarification.
All I'm saying is that it is possible that it wasn't a different direction and maybe they are doing both. Redoing the eligibility (as discussed in the fall) and this. This task force was charged with a number of things, and eventually they realized that they might not even be able to sustain a new cmp qualification structure at one event. Or maybe they realized that they can't take away Chairmans ei, rookie all star, etc from champ qualifications because it goes against FIRST's goals and objectives.
Maybe they could not announce anything in October because of non-disclosure agreements, or maybe they were still in full discussion about this and the time just wasn't right.
So just because we all read into Frank's earlier announcement in a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that it is in a different direction. And if it is, maybe it is not bad, but maybe they decided to go in a different direction to meet several different criteria. Maybe they realized that what they originally wanted to do was not possible. None of us were in the room discussing with them, so we don't know. I'm not speaking just to you, Michael, but to everyone. Just because we may see a discrepancy in something like this doesn't automatically mean foul play or poor leadership or anything bad. Maybe it just means that they later came up with a different idea that met more objectives. Or again maybe they realized that with more exponential FRC growth in coming years, this was the only sustainable option.
waialua359
14-04-2015, 03:09
Just because we may see a discrepancy in something like this doesn't automatically mean foul play or poor leadership or anything bad. Maybe it just means that they later came up with a different idea that met more objectives. Or again maybe they realized that with more exponential FRC growth in coming years, this was the only sustainable option.
Actually, from reading Mike's comment, I dont see it as criticizing FRC leadership other than wanting to get more detail on why the decisions were made.
Increasing championships from 400 to 600 teams was an enormous decision by FIRST that affects FLL, FTC and FRC. This most recent one is just mind boggling and so soon.
We havent even had a chance to play in this year's Championship event with 8 divisions and 2 Einstein fields.:ahh:
David Lame
14-04-2015, 12:45
I've looked at the blog post at the beginning of this thread. I read through it several times. Each time, I knew it struck me as odd. I just couldn't put my finger on what seemed wrong with it.
Reading through the various posts and the various reactions to this announcement, it's clear that a lot of people have a fundamentally different view of this changed format for championship events, but it has taken me a while to understand why those views seem so different. I think I'm starting to get it. Maybe I can explain, and maybe in explaining I can help myself to understand it more deeply.
My realization about why there seemed to be a disconnect between those who support the “two championship” model and those who are put off by it began with this sentence.
“Fundamentally, this change to two Championships is about making the Championship experience more accessible to more teams.”
After reading those words about seventeen times or so, the light bulb finally went on. An awful lot of people think that “the championship experience” ends at the stadium door.
Frank notes that if this move is successful, and based on reasonable growth projections, 25% of the teams will be able to participate at one of the two new events. That means 75% of the teams will not be able to participate. What does that mean for those teams? Does it mean that those teams can’t have a championship experience?
I disagree. We watch the matches. We follow the scores. We cheer on from afar. We talk with our friends.
Moreover, every time we take to the floor in a district match, I feel like we are participating in the championship experience. We are on a road that we hope ends at the championship, and maybe Einstein Field, and maybe.....dreams are fun.I can’t say what First ought to do. There’s an awful lot of factors involved. There are logistic issues, and media issues, and just plain physical space. There are travel costs and school days and goodness knows whatever other considerations have to be made in planning an event. No matter what happens, some people aren’t going to like the outcome, and nothing will be perfect.
I would just like the decision makers in First to be mindful of the impact of their decisions on all of the First community, and of all the people that we want to be part of the First community, and of all the people who are not part of the first community, but whom we wish to inspire anyway. Think outside the walls.
BrennanB
14-04-2015, 17:03
I would just like the decision makers in First to be mindful of the impact of their decisions on all of the First community, and of all the people that we want to be part of the First community, and of all the people who are not part of the first community, but whom we wish to inspire anyway. Think outside the walls.
Very well said. It's the program not the events that make the largest difference.
I would just like the decision makers in First to be mindful of the impact of their decisions on all of the First community, and of all the people that we want to be part of the First community, and of all the people who are not part of the first community, but whom we wish to inspire anyway. Think outside the walls.
I like the fact that you chose to use the word "impact" because:
EVERY decision FIRST HQ makes (including the decision to do nothing) impacts the FIRST community,
Impacts can be adverse, beneficial, or neutral, and
Any impact is relative to the existing condition.
Since people have now had time to gather their thoughts and evaluate the situation, AND since the town hall is a little over a week away, it's probably a good time to step back and reestablish exactly WHAT impacts the "two championship" model will have on the FIRST community.
What I will ask, however, is that you evaluate the impacts compared to the "no action" alternative (this would be the existing, one championship model). You need a measuring stick to judge the two championship model by; that measuring stick is the one championship model, 2-5 years in the future.
Here's and example of what I'm talking about:
Let's look at the impact on event capacity and team representation, since discussion and research has made the constraining factors pretty clear.
Two Champ Model: Moving to two championships would allow FIRST to grow event capacity to a maximum of 1200 teams attending the highest available level of competition. When regular program growth is assumed, this would allow for at least 25% of registered teams to actively participate at the highest available level of competition through 2018.
No Action: Due to venue size constraint, maintaining the one championship model would limit the ability of FIRST to increase event capacity at the highest available level of competition. Current available information suggests that the highest reasonable event capacity for a single venue would be close to 600 teams. Regular year over year program growth would result in a decreasing percentage of registered teams actively participating at the highest available level of competition, as event capacity would not be able to keep pace with program growth.
NOW, what are some other potential impacts? Here's ones I can think of, and everyone can evaluate these (and others) against the "No Action" alternative:
Percentage of teams receiving awards
Regional diversity of event(s)
Cost to teams
Access to high-level teams
Anything else?
Please look at this from a program-wide perspective, as FIRST would. And, try your very best to be objective. In my example, I tried to evaluating increases and decreases in concrete things.
I dislike the fact that so many people choose to use the word "impact" so often nowadays because:
What those users almost always mean to convey is either "effect" or "affect"
"Impact"s primary meanings are about collisions and clogs, and are not about not "affecting", or "effects".
But I suppose that is a topic for another day.
Blake, the grammar grump with a (vocabulary) word to the wise... ;)
The listening/Q&A session will be Thursday at 12:30 in the Ferrara Theater. (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Championship-Info-Session-608-Wednesday-Priorities) Bring your pitchforks (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-2014-championship-updates).
The listening/Q&A session will be Thursday at 12:30 in the Ferrara Theater. Bring your pitchforks (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-2014-championship-updates).
You linked to the 2014 pre-CMP post. Here's 2015.
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Championship-Info-Session-608-Wednesday-Priorities
Edit: Whoosh. You were referencing his pitchfork line. My bad. Regardless, there's the 2015 info.
You linked to the 2014 pre-CMP post. Here's 2015.
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Championship-Info-Session-608-Wednesday-Priorities
I was providing context for the pitchfork reference. Edited with current blog link.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.