**FIRST EMAIL**/Please give us your feedback on FIRST Announcement of 2 Championships

[Joe Ross]

This is Frank Merrick, Director of FRC writing. FIRST recently announced a change to Championship. Starting in 2017, there will be two FIRST Championship events held in two different cities. We are very interested in understanding your reaction to this announcement and learning what experiences are important to you and your team at the FIRST Championship.

This survey should take about 5-10 minutes of your time. Anyone over the age of 13 on your team can answer the survey and we encourage you to forward this to your team members and mentors. The more responses we receive, the more accurate our survey will be.

Please use the following link to access the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FIRSTChampionshipAnnouncementSurvey

We truly appreciate you taking the time to provide us with your feedback. If you have any questions about this survey, you may contact team support at frcteams@usfirst.org

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Frank Merrick
Director, FIRST ® Robotics Competition

I wonder if they'll have any results in time for the championship meeting.

[Steven Donow]

*cracks knuckles*

Time to get writin'

[Fusion_Clint]

I just took the survey, most of the questions seem to be leading to a predefined result of the experience being more important than the actual competition. They only have a couple that actually ask about being around the best teams.

[bkahl]

CD has been waiting for this...

[EricLeifermann]

Awesome that they're doing this. Sadly its WAY WAY too late. Months before signing contracts would have been the correct thing to do.

[cadandcookies]

I just took the survey, most of the questions seem to be leading to a predefined result of the experience being more important than the actual competition. They only have a couple that actually ask about being around the best teams.

I disagree. All of the elements they asked us to rate were quite distinct. They can't ask "how important is determining a world champion" three times.

I'm glad FIRST is actively seeking feedback. This makes me optimistic about our chances of coming to some sort of agreement between the FRC community and FIRST.

[dellagd]

I wonder if they'll have any results in time for the championship meeting.

Oh they'll have them, its just a question of whether or not they will share :rolleyes:

[Jared Russell]

The best time for FIRST to have sent out this survey would have been a year ago (or more).

The second best time is today.

Hopefully lots of people respond! (and yes it's okay to disagree with the hivemind)

[Tottanka]

Kudos to FIRST for doing this.
I just hope they have an option of changing things according to the results.

The questions pretty much covered all the stuff that's been said in the threads, i believe the opinion should be well expressed here in general.

I wish they could add a field for original ideas on how to make Champs better, might have got some interesting responses...

[PayneTrain]

Awesome that they're doing this. Sadly its WAY WAY too late. Months before signing contracts would have been the correct thing to do.

Guess you shouldn't fill it out then (?)

You get to rate 1-10 about 20 different elements of Championships, then pick your top 5. Meeting celebrities did not make my top 5, but you can put it there if you want!

[AGPapa]

I disagree. All of the elements they asked us to rate were quite distinct. They can't ask "how important is determining a world champion" three times.


There are certainly more questions they could have asked about seeing the best teams.

There were no/very few questions asking for things like
How important is it that you see teams from the other side of the country?
How important is it that you see Woodie Flower Award winners and other leading mentors?
How important is it that you play with the most competitive teams?
How important is it that you make new relationships with teams on the other side of the country?
How important is it that you can learn from all of the most competitive teams?


Instead many of their questions are about the venue. How important is a fancy stadium? How important is it that there are a bunch of teams? How important is a large scale event? How important is the surrounding area?


Notice how those two groups of questions ask very different things.

[PayneTrain]

There are certainly more questions they could have asked about seeing the best teams.

There were no/very few questions asking for things like
How important is it that you see teams from the other side of the country?
How important is it that you make new relationships with teams on the other side of the country?

Definitely important questions that should have been included, considering some complaints and easy solutions are based on these topics.

How important is it that you see Woodie Flower Award winners and other leading mentors?
How important is it that you play with the most competitive teams?
How important is it that you can learn from all of the most competitive teams?

I feel like
-Seeing and competing with the teams with the best robots in FRC
-Seeing and meeting top teams, like prior Chairman's Award winners (Hall of Fame teams)
-Participating in a competition that identifies the best teams playing the game

All are identical topics to the questions you asked, or similar enough that you are adding redundant data points at best and confusing survey takers at worst.


Instead many of their questions are about the venue. How important is a fancy stadium? How important is it that there are a bunch of teams? How important is a large scale event? How important is the surrounding area?


I would say it/s a 50/50 between the competition and the periphery of the competition. The thing about surveys is that you're free to rate things like "seeing celebrities" at a 1 with impunity if that is your opinion. Some people may think playing in arena like the Georgia Dome or EJDome are imoprtant experiences, and that can be ok!

One thing I included in the survey is something along the lines of this: "I don't want to think we are at best customers, and at worst pawns. We're partners." Everyone should try to look at everything though that lens, inlcuding Manchester.

[mwmac]

There are certainly more questions they could have asked about seeing the best teams.

There were no/very few questions asking for things like
How important is it that you see teams from the other side of the country?
How important is it that you see Woodie Flower Award winners and other leading mentors?
How important is it that you play with the most competitive teams?
How important is it that you make new relationships with teams on the other side of the country?
How important is it that you can learn from all of the most competitive teams?


Instead many of their questions are about the venue. How important is a fancy stadium? How important is it that there are a bunch of teams? How important is a large scale event? How important is the surrounding area?


Notice how those two groups of questions ask very different things.

Agreed. I covered your points in the comment box....barn door now closed, horse nowhere in sight...

[barn34]

The best time for FIRST to have sent out this survey would have been a year ago (or more).

The second best time is today.

Hopefully lots of people respond! (and yes it's okay to disagree with the hivemind)

My thoughts exactly. Two events is obviously a done deal and set in stone, however, there's a way that 2 events can actually work if they just listen to our feedback. Hopefully, enough people speak up that they'll be unable to ignore it or write it off as just a vocal minority.

[Bob Steele]

Hey folks....let's give them a chance. Let's see what they do with this.
There were boxes to put any comments in that you might want to give.

I remember a FIRST that would not have done this....before,after or during...

[nuclearnerd]

I'm kind of disappointed there was no field for "any other ideas for making 2 venues work?". I was looking for a place to endorse the "World Champs" and "World Festival" compromise, but then the survey was over :o

[barn34]

I'm kind of disappointed there was no field for "any other ideas for making 2 venues work?". I was looking for a place to endorse the "World Champs" and "World Festival" compromise, but then the survey was over :o

I mentioned that, in one way or another, in each of the comment boxes.

[DonShaw]

I think the survey should have preceded the announcement. Folks it is a done deal contract have been signed and all they can do now is tweek any input on what to do at the two championships.

I keep hearing "First, the sport of the mind" from Dean and Woodie so set the events up like sports do. Yes it is great to involve more kids but do not dilute a championship. They should have looked at something like this:
1) District event
2) State event
3) Regional event
4) National event
5) World Event

Even maybe a US national event and a International event followed by a World event. Look how Little League Baseball does the Little League World series.

Can somebody explain to travel cost are going to be reduce for a team from Israel, Turkey or Australia have their travel reduced by the proposed cities?

They have expanded Worlds this year by 250 teams and diluted the event in my mind as far as competition of quality robots, yes more kids involved. Is this a money issue maybe, lets see how we can get more money by adding teams more events?

Kids like to win at high levels of competition in sports, debate clubs, music competitions, programming competitions, computer games and even in FRC Robotics believe it or not. First needs to understand this and if they do not the need to see reality when watching an event.

This is a bad decision and bad timing for the survey.

Shoot, aim, ready not ready, aim fire!

They got it wrong.

[Caleb Sykes]

Here's a question I would have liked to see:
In the years 2017+, it will be much easier for us to select the size of championships because the district model will be much more widespread. Assuming another level of competition is not added, what percentage of FRC teams do you believe should qualify for championships in the years 2017-2020?

I think that many of the problems people have with the championsplit relate back to this question. FIRST seems to believe that 25% of teams should attend championships. I personally think this is far too high, I would like it much more if it were 8-10% for 2017-2020.

[David Brinza]

The best time for FIRST to have sent out this survey would have been a year ago (or more).

The second best time is today.

Hopefully lots of people respond! (and yes it's okay to disagree with the hivemind)
I agree this survey is very late, but better than never. A quick tally should be possible before next Thursday.

Perhaps a comparable survey will be sent to volunteers? The results from such a survey would be fairly predictable, though: volunteers would not favor two events, meeting familiar individuals and teams is very important, external attractions are not very important and travel expenses are a significant factor.

[grstex]

They have expanded Worlds this year by 250 teams and diluted the event in my mind as far as competition of quality robots, yes more kids involved. Is this a money issue maybe, lets see how we can get more money by adding teams more events?

How can you say Champs was diluted this year when not a single match has been played. The total number of FRC teams grows every year. And, as has been pointed out several times, the actual percentage of teams attending Championships has been shrinking. If anything, that would mean Champs is more competitive this year than last.

As for money, the 5-tier approach you suggested adds costs too. If you assume a $5,000 fee for each level, That would mean a team hoping to go all the way would need $25,000 in registration fees alone. I'd imagine that's more than most teams would spend on an entire season.

Though I will say it brings up an interesting point. Has FIRST ever taken a team budget survey? I know this can be a touchy subject, but it would likely help guide the goal of making champs more accessible and affordable.

[Mark McLeod]

Has FIRST ever taken a team budget survey?
Yes, it's actually an entry in TIMS for each team.
$22K was the average team expense in 2013

[jman4747]

I think the survey should have preceded the announcement. Folks it is a done deal contract have been signed and all they can do now is tweek any input on what to do at the two championships.

I keep hearing "First, the sport of the mind" from Dean and Woodie so set the events up like sports do. Yes it is great to involve more kids but do not dilute a championship. They should have looked at something like this:
1) District event
2) State event
3) Regional event
4) National event
5) World Event

Even maybe a US national event and a International event followed by a World event. Look how Little League Baseball does the Little League World series.

Can somebody explain to travel cost are going to be reduce for a team from Israel, Turkey or Australia have their travel reduced by the proposed cities?

They have expanded Worlds this year by 250 teams and diluted the event in my mind as far as competition of quality robots, yes more kids involved. Is this a money issue maybe, lets see how we can get more money by adding teams more events?

Kids like to win at high levels of competition in sports, debate clubs, music competitions, programming competitions, computer games and even in FRC Robotics believe it or not. First needs to understand this and if they do not the need to see reality when watching an event.

This is a bad decision and bad timing for the survey.

Shoot, aim, ready not ready, aim fire!

They got it wrong.

~$18,000-$25,000 is way way too much in registration fees. Who is going to pay for all that?

Also imagine a scenario in which nationals and the southern regional took place in Atlanta for instance. That's 3-5 state districts, 1 state championship, a regional championship, and a US championship. You want to talk about volunteer and mentor burnout? Not to mention getting out of school and work. Gas money, food money, spare parts, hotels, etc. That many tiers is not sustainable.

We started the season with around 8,300 cash. How on earth would we get another ~12,000 to pay for that many competitions and still build a robot and put gas in the cars? Everyone doesn't have a +$20,000 budget.

[Chris Hibner]

I'm definitely on team "I want only one championship", but I thought the survey was very fair and quite well written. I applaud FIRST for doing this.

If I were to predict what the company line will be at the town hall meeting, here it is:

1) "The response from the survey was that the community would prefer a single championship event such that it is a true championship"

2) "Sometimes change is hard. People thought alliances were a bad idea at first, and there were a lot of people against districts at first. But now those are well accepted in FIRST.

3) "Therefore we're going to stick with the plan for now. We'll pilot the dual championships for 3 years and re-assess everyone's opinion after giving it a try."

[216Robochick288]

Can I just childishly sit here and after putting in my thoughts on the 2 championship things, it asked to put in my team number and it wouldnt let me put in all 6 of mine. I feel slighted. (Im from a team with 3 separate numbers, then I coach 3 up north)

#FIRSTworldproblems

[David Lame]

I'm glad they are asking for feedback. However, surveys can be tricky things to interpret. The way the questions are asked definitely influences the manner in which they are answered.

I don't have extremely strong feelings about how season finale events ought to be structured. There are many, many, factors to consider. I want something spectacular, and I want something affordable. I want something that showcases the best of First, and I want it accessible to as many people as possible. These desires are very difficult to balance, and may even be mutually exclusive, so no solution is perfect.

However, the one thing that really struck me about the survey was how it continued to focus on the Championship experience as if that experience were limited to those people who were physically present at the championships. Even the most inclusive vision of the season finale events has no more than 25% of First teams in attendance. I think the other 75% matter too. This is the 21st century. You don't have to be in the same room to be part of the same experience.

Think outside the walls.

[Alex2614]

I think the survey should have preceded the announcement. Folks it is a done deal contract have been signed and all they can do now is tweek any input on what to do at the two championships.

I keep hearing "First, the sport of the mind" from Dean and Woodie so set the events up like sports do. Yes it is great to involve more kids but do not dilute a championship. They should have looked at something like this:
1) District event
2) State event
3) Regional event
4) National event
5) World Event

Even maybe a US national event and a International event followed by a World event. Look how Little League Baseball does the Little League World series.

Can somebody explain to travel cost are going to be reduce for a team from Israel, Turkey or Australia have their travel reduced by the proposed cities?

They have expanded Worlds this year by 250 teams and diluted the event in my mind as far as competition of quality robots, yes more kids involved. Is this a money issue maybe, lets see how we can get more money by adding teams more events?

Kids like to win at high levels of competition in sports, debate clubs, music competitions, programming competitions, computer games and even in FRC Robotics believe it or not. First needs to understand this and if they do not the need to see reality when watching an event.

This is a bad decision and bad timing for the survey.

Shoot, aim, ready not ready, aim fire!

They got it wrong.

Wow, good luck convincing our school board to let the kids off of school that much! We would barely make it to the regional! Also, not sure how we are supposed to hold a state event with only 4 teams. And for a world event, do you realize how many events exist outside the US? Not very many. You would end up with a world event consisting of 20 teams.

As far as travel cost reducing, I do remember folks complaining that flying into St. Louis is much more expensive than other US cities. I.e. the travel cost went up for PNW teams when we moved from Atlanta to St. Louis because of airfare. I'm not sure how Detroit and Dallas play into that, though.

I get what you are saying, but in the current state of FIRST, that wouldn't work either. Maybe 10 or 20 years from now. It seems like either FIRST is moving towards a "super-regional" model, or this is their **temporary solution as districts expand and FRC and FTC keep vastly expanding. They needed some wiggle room while districts are in the process of becoming universal. And after that point, maybe one championship would be an option again.

Diluted competition this year? You realize that the 400-team championship is actually much larger than it used to be? It has grown from just a couple hundred to 400 in the 2000s. Did that dilute the competition? Expanding the championship by 200 teams has been done before. And while I wasn't there in the 200-team championship era, I do know people that were. And they never said "gee, I wish there were much fewer teams here this year, because the competition is much more dilute than it was 15 years ago."

I'm kind of disappointed there was no field for "any other ideas for making 2 venues work?". I was looking for a place to endorse the "World Champs" and "World Festival" compromise, but then the survey was over :o

I mentioned this multiple times in the comment boxes. Go take the survey again and advocate for that!! :)

[Chief Hedgehog]

I just took the survey, most of the questions seem to be leading to a predefined result of the experience being more important than the actual competition. They only have a couple that actually ask about being around the best teams.

Agreed. The survey seemed to have questions that resulted in a pre-determined result.

No where in the survey did it ask about cost, logistics, student absences. Frank, or those that wrote the survey, dropped the ball. It seems that FIRST is just fishing for results that they can use to justify their agenda.

*Disappointed*

[Chief Hedgehog]

I'm definitely on team "I want only one championship", but I thought the survey was very fair and quite well written. I applaud FIRST for doing this.

If I were to predict what the company line will be at the town hall meeting, here it is:

1) "The response from the survey was that the community would prefer a single championship event such that it is a true championship"

2) "Sometimes change is hard. People thought alliances were a bad idea at first, and there were a lot of people against districts at first. But now those are well accepted in FIRST.

3) "Therefore we're going to stick with the plan for now. We'll pilot the dual championships for 3 years and re-assess everyone's opinion after giving it a try."

I am surprised at your response. To me it seemed that the survey was constructed with questions that only helped to support the decisions that were already determined. Maybe I was too pessimistic - but the survey seemed to slant in the way of trying to justify the fore coming structure of FIRST.

To each their own!

[dcarr]

I am surprised at your response. To me it seemed that the survey was constructed with questions that only helped to support the decisions that were already determined. Maybe I was too pessimistic - but the survey seemed to slant in the way of trying to justify the fore coming structure of FIRST.

To each their own!

What about the question where it asked you to rank your support of the two championships plan from 1-10, where 1 indicated that you "Strongly Oppose 2 Championships"?

I certainly agree with the sentiment that this survey is at least a year too late, but I don't necessarily think it was written with an outright bias.

[Ginger Power]

What about the question where it asked you to rank your support of the two championships plan from 1-10, where 1 indicated that you "Strongly Oppose 2 Championships"?

I certainly agree with the sentiment that this survey is at least a year too late, but I don't necessarily think it was written with an outright bias.

While I agree that I don't believe it was meant to be biased, I noticed myself answering in ways that could be used to prove that people want the Championshplit. I think 2 champs is an awful idea unless it is just paving the way for super regionals, in which case it's an acceptable, potenially necessary evil.

[jds2001]

While I agree that I don't believe it was meant to be biased, I noticed myself answering in ways that could be used to prove that people want the Championshplit. I think 2 champs is an awful idea unless it is just paving the way for super regionals, in which case it's an acceptable, potenially necessary evil.

This, and this is how I see it. I think that the scaling of FRC is such that right now, super regionals aren't really a possibility. However, by 2021, things should be scaled up enough that it's a possibility. Therefore, I see this as a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

This is why in the survey to the first question, I said that I was ambivalent about the split, and provided the same detailed comments as to why.

Of course, the financial implications of such a move would need consideration as well - there's team travel to more events, more event registration fees (you can't put these events on for free, and the money has to come from somewhere), more time off school for students and teachers, more time off work for mentors, etc.

All in all, I think that this was messaged poorly, not that it was a poor decision. A lot of companies make that error - they make the correct decisions for the long term viability of the company/program/whatever and then completely mess up the messaging around it, making it seem as though it was a hastily made decision with no thoughts as to consequences. All in all, for a team PR person, I think that this is an excellent case study - getting exposure to the real world via FIRST :D

[sanddrag]

Yes, it's actually an entry in TIMS for each team.
$22K was the average team expense in 2013I'd love to see a distribution graph of this figure. I speculate it's heavily offset toward the low end by a large quantity of teams that attend only one event. For teams who attend championship, I imagine their annual expenses can easily reach double this number, if not more.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Can somebody explain to travel cost are going to be reduce for a team from Israel, Turkey or Australia have their travel reduced by the proposed cities? Houston has a major international airport. St Louis doesn't. Tel Aviv flights look about 300 cheaper. Sao Paulo is about 100 cheaper. Also all those Canadian teams heading to Detroit.

[David Lame]

Here's a question I found very difficult to answer:

How important is meeting celebrities at the event(s)?

Being in the presence of People Magazine type celebrities means pretty much nothing to me, and I suspect that typical robotics students and mentors are less impressed by media superstars than are the general public. In that sense, it would get a zero on the importance scale.

On the other hand, people like the President of the United States, or the head of NASA, or a major tech CEO is a bit different. I would like to see those people at the event. (The President via live video, if possible. Actual presence requires too much security.) It's not that I think those people are cooler than rock stars or quarterbacks. That's not it at all.

I want our event to be so important, so significant, so worthy of attention that those people think it's worthwhile for them to come to us. If the President pays attention to us, other people will pay attention to what he pays attention to. I want tech CEOs to show up not because they are billionaires and I want our kids to get a chance to be in the same room them. I want them to realize that this is a rare opportunity to advertise in front of an important audience. They know that the best engineers of the next decade are in their audience, and they want those people to have a favorable impression of their company when they start looking for jobs after graduation.

When it comes to the media megastars, (like Will I Am for example) they can play a role, too, but not in an "I want to meet them" sort of way. Those people, for better or worse, draw attention. If having those people present draws the attention of the world on us and on our kids, then that's fantastic.

In other words, I want the event to be worthy of attention, and the presence of celebrities can help draw the attention the event deserves. In that sense, celebrity presence is at least an 8 out of 10.

[Kevin Ray]

I'm definitely on team "I want only one championship", but I thought the survey was very fair and quite well written. I applaud FIRST for doing this.

If I were to predict what the company line will be at the town hall meeting, here it is:

1) "The response from the survey was that the community would prefer a single championship event such that it is a true championship"

2) "Sometimes change is hard. People thought alliances were a bad idea at first, and there were a lot of people against districts at first. But now those are well accepted in FIRST.

3) "Therefore we're going to stick with the plan for now. We'll pilot the dual championships for 3 years and re-assess everyone's opinion after giving it a try."

Emphasis mine
+1

[DonShaw]

So with more events could First not get the cost per event down or have we have just come to except an event cost 4-5k? I would like to see a cost breakdown from First.

If districts are Saturday and Sunday then school would not be missed.

By diluted I mean that the prestige of the event. If every team can go to worlds what makes it special other than teams from all over are there? I disagree with the buy in for worlds as well. We are a team that must qualify on merits not money!

STL is an international airport.

The district model will cost our team the same amount as two regional s and worlds.

[Siri]

Of course, the financial implications of such a move would need consideration as well - there's team travel to more events, more event registration fees (you can't put these events on for free, and the money has to come from somewhere)...Many (most?) events run on event sponsorships rather than registration funds. For instance, back in the day FiM wanted MSC to be free to teams; Manchester set the price. I don't know if this applies to Worlds, but in terms of districts and regionals. HQ may subsidize some, but there are a lot of event sponsors around.

STL is an international airport.STL is an expensive international airport.

[Tom Line]

I'm kind of disappointed there was no field for "any other ideas for making 2 venues work?". I was looking for a place to endorse the "World Champs" and "World Festival" compromise, but then the survey was over :o

Same. I used the last question box to explain that there are some very serious issues with their claim of reduced costs. Flimsy claims backing questionable decisions tend to look very bad to a very intelligent community.