Proposal for the 2 Championship format [Archive]

Citrus Dad

02-05-2015, 20:09

I'm making a mix 'n match set of proposal for the change in the Championship format under the following premises.
First, that FIRST requires the following parameters:
- 2 "Championships" through 2020
- 400 FRC teams at each event (800 total)
- FIRST Progression of programs at each event (IE FLL/FTC/FRC).
Second, that FIRST is not requiring that each Championship be at equal parity, that instead FIRST is focused on emphasizing getting the experience for as many teams as possible, but that it is open to differences in the competitive meaning for each event.
Third, that separately into two championships really doesn't reduce the travel costs significantly for the vast majority of teams. (Only moving to bicoastal would have done this, and only BC Place in Vancouver likely would be able to accommodate the event on the West Coast.)
And fourth, that teams will benefit from the championship experience even without the very top teams (and FIRST has already acknowledged that by creating an event in which not all of the very best teams can be there at the same time.) One reason is that there are a number of very good teams that qualify through second tier means e.g., wild cards.

These are only initial discussion proposals and in fact they cannot all be done simultaneously. In some cases, the Championship qualification could progress from one version to another.

At the core of this proposal is to have two levels to Championships that correspond somewhat to the different league play levels in English football:

- Premier Championship - the top qualifying teams play for the overall championship
- Challenger Championship - the next level of qualifying teams, many of which already qualify for the current single championship event.

Qualifying either of these events could work in one or a combination of any of these three methods. In each case, Hall of Fame teams would be entitled to go to the Challenger Champs; they would need to qualify to the Premier Champs the same as all other teams. This will ensure that known top teams will be attending the Challenger Champs. Wait listed teams will go the Challenger event as well.

A) Expanding the status quo: Regional winners, RCAs and DC qualifiers would advance to the Premier Champs. Regional finalists, EIs, Rookie All Stars and 2nd tier DC qualifiers would go to the Challenger event. (District event winners, RCAs, EIs, RAS etc might qualify to fill out the Challenger.) Essentially, teams that now qualify as wild cards will be going to the Challenger event. The numbers may not balance out exactly here so there may have to be some refinement required.

B) Building on the District model: Use a form of the District scoring method to select the top 400 to the Premier Champs and the next 400 to the Challenger Champs. The District scoring may need to be refined because it presently underweights winning events compared to qualifying and alliance selection. It also doesn't weight Chairman's and EI sufficiently to get those event winners to either Champs. District championship results could be used to advance teams from those areas. Districts could be allocated slots based on the performance of teams at the previous year's Champs. (The NCAA cross country qualifying uses this method to allocate slots across eight regions.) RAS would qualify for Challengers unless they qualify for Premier through a different means.

C) Promotion and relegation: This relies on how teams performed in the previous year. Use either the status quo or district points qualifying system. Teams that had finished in the top 50% of Premier Championship the previous year would again advance to Premier. Teams that were in the bottom 50% of the Challenger would go to the Challenger event. The top 50% of the Challenger event would be promoted to the Premier event; the bottom 50% from the Premier would be relegated to the Challenger event. New teams would qualify for either event based on the either the A or B method above. Chairman's would go to Premier; EI would go to Challenger. RAS would go to Challengers.

None of the numbers or qualifying methods listed here are set in stone. This is just the beginning of a discussion. The final aim is to both name a single champion and give 800 teams the championship experience. FIRST can determine whether it wants one Chairman's or two; and how many other awards it gives. (I think its time to expand the number of Hall of Fame teams given the growth in FRC.)

Jay O'Donnell

02-05-2015, 20:19

I love it. It allows more teams to get the championship experience, and even more teams have a chance to legitimately compete for some sort of championship win.

Steven Donow

02-05-2015, 20:22

I like Situation A the best (which is similar to some of the World Festival/World Championship proposals), but what are your thoughts on how to deal with 'double qualifiers'. Ie. teams that are, say, a finalist at a week one event, qualifiying them for the Challenger event, but then win a week 6 event?

EricH

02-05-2015, 20:41

Just as a minor item, I'm not sure I'd have the promotion/relegation. I think it'd be just a little too confusing and cumbersome.

For example: A team one year finishes dead last in Premier, and is thus relegated to Challenger for the following season. They then win 2 events and an RCA: Are they still in Challenger, based on their relegation, or are they now in Premier based on their current-season results? Or, a team finishes in the top 50% of Premier, then suddenly ends up in the bottom of their events the following year (or takes a couple years off). Are they still Premier, or are they relegated?

I think the biggest problem with that system is simply the fundamental difference between Premier League and (whatever the 2nd-tier level is) and the FRC competition: In soccer, the team setup is, well, set. You KNOW at the end of the previous season where you stand. And then you're moved up or down for the next season. In FRC,who is IN the championship(s) varies wildly year-to-year. So setting up the promotion/relegation would only work for any given year to following year... and only for the teams that are attending in both years: AKA, World Champs, HoF, EI... who would, naturally, all be locked into Premier OR Challenger unless otherwise moved. You've got new teams, etc.

It's an interesting concept, but I would suspect that in practice it'll be difficult to work out.

The hard part about the whole split is to get a reasonable balance of the top teams, and a reasonable balance of "seeing new faces". And still crown a single champion. That's going to be really difficult.

My proposal: Deals only with "balance" mentioned previously. Single champion alliance can be dealt with later by a wide variety of methods.

If you go to one championship in one year, should you qualify for Championship the next year, you are routed to the other championship (barring extenuating circumstances and all). Anything beyond one year, you go to whichever one you're normally assigned to. And if there are a lot of teams bouncing back and forth, there's always the "random factor" that will randomly assign you to one or the other...

Fusion_Clint

02-05-2015, 21:54

I think the "B" model has merit. I would change it to have the top 250 teams go to Premiere and next 250 go to Challenger based solely on performance points from competitions.

Then rank the RCA's, EI, and RAS using the same system but excluding the non RCA's, EI, and RAS teams. Then the top 150 go to premiere and the next 150 go to Challenger. Hall of Fame teams go to Challenger unless they qualify outright for Premiere.

My numbers are a WAG, but you get the point.

If a team somehow qualifies for both competitions they go to Premiere and the Challenger slot is filled from the wait list.

wilsonmw04

02-05-2015, 22:54

Fusion_Clint

02-05-2015, 23:12

You are making the distinct error that FIRST wants to have the best robot competition possible. That has been brought up in other threads. Your format does not alleviate this problem. In fact it's conclusions put more weight on robot performance than anything else. There seems to be a dissonance between the goals of this format and those publicly announced by FIRST.

I get what your saying, but I'm hoping that that FIRST is now truly listening to what the teams want.

A two tiered championship model could work, instead of a venue becoming "better" than then other; we go into the process with a Venue "A" as the premiere event. Granted, Venue "B" is a slightly lesser event, but it provides a place for the really good but not great teams to have a meaningful competition. The inspiration is there for all students and the motivation for venue "B" teams to elevate to the venue "A" self evident.

scottandme

02-05-2015, 23:13

Just for context (not sure if there is good data on declines/wildcards for 2015)

505 Slots existed in 2014:
Regionals (56) x 6 = 336 Slots
Districts (5) =169 Slots

The district slots increased substantially this year. Even with that, you only need to trim 105 slots to keep one championship "qualification only". Seems pretty practical depending on what approach you want to take to trim teams.

Unfortunately, I don't see FIRST pursuing a two-tier solution.

wilsonmw04

02-05-2015, 23:18

I get what your saying, but I'm hoping that that FIRST is now truly listening to what the teams want.

Please don't confuse a vocal minority that is CD with "what the teams want."

scottandme

02-05-2015, 23:33

Please don't confuse a vocal minority that is CD with "what the teams want."

We'll just have to wait for the FIRST survey results - though I doubt they'll be releasing anything close to raw data.

I don't think it's unfair to say that the new format is not viewed favorably by a large majority of the community.

Fusion_Clint

03-05-2015, 00:40

Please don't confuse a vocal minority that is CD with "what the teams want."

So what does your team want?

wilsonmw04

03-05-2015, 00:48

So what does your team want?

I won't assume that I speak for the 50+ students on my team. Several of them are confident I have no idea what I am talking about at any given time.

What I will say is that whatever FIRST decides, it has no (zero) effect on what I am going to be doing with my team in the near term or foreseeable future.

Gregor

03-05-2015, 00:49

wilsonmw04

03-05-2015, 00:56

What's your opinion then?

I think that FIRST is trying to get back to what it did best: to inspire a generation of students. The board feels that increasing the number of students that attend Worlds is the best way to do that. After going to Worlds this year, I can agree that we can't fit in one location and accomplish what the board wants to do. The only reservation I have about the split is if there were some sort of year after year geographic split between the teams. It would be a shame if west coast teams never got to play with east coast teams.

Fusion_Clint

03-05-2015, 01:00

I won't assume that I speak for the 50+ students on my team. Several of them are confident I have no idea what I am talking about at any given time.

What I will say is that whatever FIRST decides, it has no (zero) effect on what I am going to be doing with my team in the near term or foreseeable future.

Nice non-answer. I have no doubt that I know what my students prefer; maybe you should consult your students on the matter at hand.

Either help with the issue or not, being the devils advocate without purpose doesn't help anything.

PriyankP

03-05-2015, 01:12

asid61

03-05-2015, 01:13

This plan makes me uncomfortable. I want to see the winning teams at championships without having to win every event we go to. Teams that don't win who learn a lot from my experience there.

EricH

03-05-2015, 01:19

I had the same/similar idea when I looked at the IIHF ranking system two months ago. In that system, the countries are divided into different levels, with 1-2 teams earning their way to the next level when they qualify.

Such a system in FIRST would have two levels (let's say Division A and Division B).

At first, all teams are in Division B. Any team that reaches the finals of a regional or wins an engineering related award gets promoted to Division A status for next season (or even for the next regional if the team chooses).

This gives teams a nice sandbox environment to get going first before they face the more established teams with more resources. Of course, if a team wants to downgrade, they can do so at any time.

This could also be divided into more than two levels if it is better. Need to iron out the details, but you get the idea!

The "haha, your team is a Division B team" mentality seems like the inevitable downside to this.

There is another one. I'm going to go way back into my memory banks for this one, and hope I'm remembering the anecdote right (it's on CD... somewhere--that's where I remember this from).

Back about a decade ago, during team forums after the season, someone (don't remember who) was at one in some location (don't remember where). And somebody in the room was really vocal about how all of FRC should be split in just about the manner you're describing (and remember, we're dealing with about half the teams we have today at this point in time). That's when a newbie team mentor--might have been a rookie team--who'd been rather quiet spoke up and said something about how beating (or was it playing with) Wildstang (FRC111) had been the highlight of their year, and they would lose that inspiration if the split happened. The rather vocal somebody promptly kept quiet.

PriyankP

03-05-2015, 01:29

There is another one. I'm going to go way back into my memory banks for this one, and hope I'm remembering the anecdote right (it's on CD... somewhere--that's where I remember this from).

Back about a decade ago, during team forums after the season, someone (don't remember who) was at one in some location (don't remember where). And somebody in the room was really vocal about how all of FRC should be split in just about the manner you're describing (and remember, we're dealing with about half the teams we have today at this point in time). That's when a newbie team mentor--might have been a rookie team--who'd been rather quiet spoke up and said something about how beating (or was it playing with) Wildstang (FRC111) had been the highlight of their year, and they would lose that inspiration if the split happened. The rather vocal somebody promptly kept quiet.

Yep, there's also the financial downside too. Teams on the bigger stage would be able to get sponsorships much more easily because of the wider audience and the bigger impact of the team.

The same problems exist in the IIHF system. I didn't even know some of the lower tier countries had a team.

Would this help? I think so. But, there are just as many cons (if not more) as there are pros.

MrForbes

03-05-2015, 01:43

Third, that separately into two championships really doesn't reduce the travel costs significantly for the vast majority of teams.

I think you might want to do the math on this one...and show your work.

Even for us in southeast AZ, moving from St Louis to Houston makes it driveable for me, and Detroit is way far away.

There are a lot of teams in Michigan...and Minnesota...and Ontario....etc. And in Texas...

Boe

03-05-2015, 01:50

I think you might want to do the math on this one...and show your work.

Even for us in southeast AZ, moving from St Louis to Houston makes it driveable for me, and Detroit is way far away.

There are a lot of teams in Michigan...and Minnesota...and Ontario....etc. And in Texas...

Detroit will actually be a farther drive then St. Louis for the vast majority of Minnesota teams.

MrForbes

03-05-2015, 01:57

What about Houston?

EricH

03-05-2015, 02:23

What about Houston?

Definitely farther for Minnesota. Detroit would only be a few hundred miles farther than St. Louis if it weren't for Lake Michigan. Houston is double that, give or take a bit.

Abhishek R

03-05-2015, 02:30

Citrus Dad

03-05-2015, 02:34

I think that FIRST is trying to get back to what it did best: to inspire a generation of students. The board feels that increasing the number of students that attend Worlds is the best way to do that. After going to Worlds this year, I can agree that we can't fit in one location and accomplish what the board wants to do. The only reservation I have about the split is if there were some sort of year after year geographic split between the teams. It would be a shame if west coast teams never got to play with east coast teams.

I absolutely agree with that sentiment. I have no problem going to 800 teams. However, I really haven't seen what FIRST is proposing on how to manage those 800 teams. What I've proposed is an organized method to ensure that a geographic mix of teams continues to go to both venues. A geographic split will not achieve that goal. It will be Michigan/Ontario/MAR at Detroit and Texas/CA/PNW at Houston unless FIRST institutes a system something like I'm proposing. I've thought about the problem of geographic rotation, but there's really no way to achieve it with the venues anchored in 2 of the most prominent FRC regions. Really, Michigan teams are going to Houston? Nothing I'm proposing here is inconsistent with FIRST's goals.

And I'm a mentor, not a student. What FIRST decides will affect my team in 2 years when I'm still working with them.

Citrus Dad

03-05-2015, 02:40

This plan makes me uncomfortable. I want to see the winning teams at championships without having to win every event we go to. Teams that don't win who learn a lot from my experience there.

I would hope that your team would learn a lot from other great teams at the Challenger event. For example, 971 and 701 whom you know well would have been at the Challenger event this year under system A. Our team learns a huge amount from them--they probably contributed more to our team than any other over the last few years. Are they not great teams? I expect that many other teams of their caliber would be at the Challenger event.

And you wouldn't have to win "every" event that you go to. In fact I can see how under systems B or C that teams that place high continually could go to the Premier event.

waialua359

03-05-2015, 02:45

Its too bad FIRST cant just find a venue (and city) that can hold 800 teams. Problem solved.

dodar

03-05-2015, 02:53

Its too bad FIRST cant just find a venue (and city) that can hold 800 teams. Problem solved.

There's tons of those. But then you'd have to give up the luxury of holding them in stadiums.

waialua359

03-05-2015, 02:55

There's tons of those. But then you'd have to give up the luxury of holding them in stadiums.
Is this really true? Sorry, not familiar with facilities across the US.

EricH

03-05-2015, 03:10

Oh man, am I a fan of the promotion/relegation system. As for confusion, there is precedence - I will say multiple sports and even some "eSports" use a similar system, and it works fine - it actually becomes quite simple to understand.

For example, in League, the bottom 3 teams in the League Championship Series (LCS) fight the top 3 Challenger Series (CS) teams for the spots in the LCS; to reclaim or debut, respectively. It's actually pretty cool, it ensures freshness in the league and allows up and coming teams to get into the spotlight.

I understand it, to some extent, at those levels. Here's the problem I have:

How in tarnation do you deal with a team that just got relegated last year and now has 3 regional wins, one EI, and one RCA, or somesuch impressive resume? Do you put them in the relegated CMP or in the top CMP? Eh? How about the team that won the whole thing last year, and is nowhere to be found this year? Eh? Fair warning, I'm going to keep asking this until I get an answer. It shouldn't be all that hard to figure out--it'd happen often enough, no? And it's happened often enough with one CMP already, somewhat.

To put it mildly: Relegation works fairly well when there is NOT a lot of "churn" of teams joining/exiting a league--you can assign a team once, they go up and down, and maybe eventually they fold and leave completely. Relegation fails miserably when there IS a lot of "churn"--and in FRC, there's a lot of "churn" going to the Champs. The top teams will tend to stay the same and make a lot of trips to the top event (read: Poofs, Simbotics, HOT, etc.). The not-so-top teams won't--and that's where you have to make a lot of tough calls. Probably a third--a full third--of the teams at CMP this year won't be there next year. So now you have a new X teams to assign, and then relegate, that may or may not end up to be relegated in the long run because they just plain don't make it the next year.

That's why I just plain don't like any sort of promotion/relegation system from year to year. It's going to create a lot more problems than it's worth. Just assign based on "current" qualification (even if that's last year's award) and go from there. Sure, maybe you have one or two teams that switch due to not doing as well, but that's "normal".

One final thought: If some sort of promotion/relegation does happen, any and all talk about "reducing travel costs" needs to be expunged from the record, completely. If it is in fact cheaper for a team to travel to one event, but they are assigned to the other due to the promotion/relegation system, travel costs are not reduced. Can you imagine if a Detroit CMP-bound team ended up in Houston? Or if Mr. Forbes (just to pick on him) and his team ended up going to Detroit when Houston was closer? And if that wasn't just the exception, but the rule?

Chief Hedgehog

03-05-2015, 03:23

Its too bad FIRST cant just find a venue (and city) that can hold 800 teams. Problem solved.

Minneapolis. Done. We have the infrastructure, the venues all connected by skyways, Metro Transit, etc. And we are centrally located. With the advent of the new Vikings Stadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Minnesota_Stadium) and then the subsequent University of Minnesota Arenas and the Target Center as well as the Minneapolis Convention Center all connected via Skyway and Metro Transit the metro area could be a contendor.

It is a safe city and has the ultimate back-up in having St Paul as another place to host events. Minneapolis is a Global City and has the most Theatrical Stages outside of New York in the USA. We have a top tier airport - A Delta hub. The Mall of America that has 40 million visitors annually. We boast teams from the top 5 tier sports in North America (Twins, Vikings, Timberwolves, Wild, and MN United).

I would love to see Minnesota host the Championships. Those that have attended the MPLS or Duluth Regionals can attest to the success of the events.

Maybe in 2021 or beyond we can have all of you here. Our Hotdish is the best!

dodar

03-05-2015, 03:29

Is this really true? Sorry, not familiar with facilities across the US.

Minnesota could, so could Chicago, Orlando, probably somewhere in Texas, along with somewhere in California.

Mainly look for big convention centers. But, like I said, you'd have to sacrifice the stadium feel.

waialua359

03-05-2015, 05:05

I would love to see Minnesota host the Championships. Those that have attended the MPLS or Duluth Regionals can attest to the success of the events.

We have, and have no problem going there again if it meant ONE championship.:)

asid61

03-05-2015, 07:23

I would hope that your team would learn a lot from other great teams at the Challenger event. For example, 971 and 701 whom you know well would have been at the Challenger event this year under system A. Our team learns a huge amount from them--they probably contributed more to our team than any other over the last few years. Are they not great teams? I expect that many other teams of their caliber would be at the Challenger event.

And you wouldn't have to win "every" event that you go to. In fact I can see how under systems B or C that teams that place high continually could go to the Premier event.

I loved 971 and 701, particularly the incredible linkage the former used this year.
But if we deicded that anybody who seeds high or gets far in elims and all of those who won a regional were the only people who went to a "premier" championship, then it would feel almost fake to win a the "challenger" event. If all the winners go to one event, then the other event is left, not devoid of talent, but far more lacking in it. It would just be a really big regional event, except without 254, 1678, (probably) 971, etc. etc, and we get to see all of those teams at SVR. But 148, 1114, 624, I doubt we would ever get a chance to see in person without being among the winning group ourselves (in which case I would probably want to have a winner's championship to test our abilities against the best, ironically).

GaryVoshol

03-05-2015, 08:01

In leagues that have the promotion/relegation model, the teams play only in their own division all year long. Then at the end of the season, usually following some kind of playoffs, the promotion/relegation happens. And I don't know that I've ever seen a 50% change - usually it's 10%, maybe 20%.

So are you proposing that we have a split season all the way through? That teams in Champion only play against other Champion division teams?

If not, you don't have a fair way of moving teams to either of the championships. Teams could do wonderfully well in the season, beating other teams that are in the "top" division, but still be sent to the "second" championship.

Come to think of it, there's kind of a precedence for that in FIRST - it's called FLL. Teams could win the Champion award (equivalent to Chairman's) at their state championship, but not get invited to the World Festival. The only difference is that there isn't a "second" championship for them to be invited to, just some Opens. It would be like FRC saying, "OK, you're great, but because you weren't great before you can't go to champs. Maybe you should apply to IRI."

ScandallB225

03-05-2015, 09:10

I agree that there should be some sort of vetting or seeding process, but prior seasons' results should not play into it, until we start playing the same challenge year after year. How do you compare Aerial Assist to Recycle Rush?

IF there is a two "CMP" split, my opinion is there should be a venue for the best-of-the-best of that season to compete against each other. That is not necessarily the Regional/District winners. How many third picks are to have a cold dish for cheesecake? (2nd picks for that matter) most alliance captains are more worthy than the first picks of Regional Winners, but do not qualify.

In my mind the most practical system would be to have Super Regionals with a CMP feel. (HOF, Scholarship Row, How To Conferences ...)Then the top teams qualify for Worlds. HOF RCA RAS have equal opportunity at the Super Regional level.

This idea does not solve any travel issues. For those that qualify it would add another level of cost, especially for teams not in the contiguous USA.

scottandme

03-05-2015, 09:38

I don't think 2 "division" are necessary, but it's a valid solution for many high school sports. Expand the district point model, or adopt a system similar to FTC or FLL where only some awards earn a Champs berth. Again, we're only talking about 75-100 current qualifiers that would need to be re-routed. FTC only sends 128 teams to Champs as is...

Again, this is an argument to make FRC a more legitimate competitive enterprise, which is not what FIRST seems to want, but dreaming along for a second here...

How in tarnation do you deal with a team that just got relegated last year and now has 3 regional wins, one EI, and one RCA, or somesuch impressive resume? Do you put them in the relegated CMP or in the top CMP? Eh? How about the team that won the whole thing last year, and is nowhere to be found this year? Eh? Fair warning, I'm going to keep asking this until I get an answer. It shouldn't be all that hard to figure out--it'd happen often enough, no? And it's happened often enough with one CMP already, somewhat.

Well, that happens in many high school sports. Some schools are perpetually competitive, and stay in the top division, with the bottom of the division(s) experiencing more "churn" as teams rise and fall.

To put it mildly: Relegation works fairly well when there is NOT a lot of "churn" of teams joining/exiting a league--you can assign a team once, they go up and down, and maybe eventually they fold and leave completely. Relegation fails miserably when there IS a lot of "churn"--and in FRC, there's a lot of "churn" going to the Champs. The top teams will tend to stay the same and make a lot of trips to the top event (read: Poofs, Simbotics, HOT, etc.). The not-so-top teams won't--and that's where you have to make a lot of tough calls. Probably a third--a full third--of the teams at CMP this year won't be there next year. So now you have a new X teams to assign, and then relegate, that may or may not end up to be relegated in the long run because they just plain don't make it the next year.

Who do you think makes up the "churn" at Champs in the current qualification system? Pretty much all the teams that the OP proposed moving to the "B" champs.

As per Jim Zondag's awesome Championship History Data - only 567 teams made the elimination rounds from 2001 to 2015. Only 494 of those teams are still active. Only 270 unique teams made elims from 2012-2015. That's a lot of repetition.

One final thought: If some sort of promotion/relegation does happen, any and all talk about "reducing travel costs" needs to be expunged from the record, completely. If it is in fact cheaper for a team to travel to one event, but they are assigned to the other due to the promotion/relegation system, travel costs are not reduced. Can you imagine if a Detroit CMP-bound team ended up in Houston? Or if Mr. Forbes (just to pick on him) and his team ended up going to Detroit when Houston was closer? And if that wasn't just the exception, but the rule?

Well, all the "reducing costs" talking points are already pretty weak. The team distribution doesn't support the current venue choices. There are too many teams in the Northeast, and not nearly enough near Texas. Circles are 150, 300, and 600 mile. Blue goes to Houston, Red goes to Detroit. There are already going to be a lot of teams closer to Detroit being assigned to Houston.

http://i.imgur.com/9GmQ4cO.png

wilsonmw04

03-05-2015, 10:00

northstardon

03-05-2015, 10:11

Minneapolis. Done. We have the infrastructure, the venues all connected by skyways, Metro Transit, etc. And we are centrally located. With the advent of the new Vikings Stadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Minnesota_Stadium) and then the subsequent University of Minnesota Arenas and the Target Center as well as the Minneapolis Convention Center all connected via Skyway and Metro Transit the metro area could be a contendor.

While I love the location, I'm uncertain of the logistics. The Minneapolis Convention Center is more than a mile away from the new skyway-connected Vikings stadium site. That's a really long round-trip if the plan is to follow the St. Louis model, and put playing fields in a stadium, and 800 pits in convention area space.

On the other hand, the drive teams might love navigating their carts though the crowded Mpls skyway system during the business day. It'd be like that scene in the "Mighty Ducks" movie, only with robots instead of rollerblades.

iVanDuzer

03-05-2015, 12:13

I'm personally a huge fan of Proposal B. I think that expanding the "Challenger Tier" would actually go a long way to addressing a lot of problems in the "Super Regional" model (especially the lengthened competition season).

Let's think in the future...

All of FRC plays with the District points system. As mentioned elsewhere, it'll need to be tweaked a bit to account for the difference between District and Regional play. But the spirit is there: teams earn points for performance at events, by winning matches, seeding high, and winning awards.

At the end of the season, we get two tiers of competition:

Tier One (Champion) is the top 20% of FRC teams that year, plus Legacy and Hall of Fame. These teams compete at the traditional, 4-field Championship Event.
Tier Two (Challenger) are all teams that are in the 21% to ~50% range. They advance to the "Super Regionals."

Super Regionals in this context would be localized events that are made up of ~200 teams. Two fields, two divisions, etc. They basically have the effect of District Championships, but Bigger.

Instead of adding Super Regionals as a step to qualify for the World Championships, they are the end goal. There are a couple good things about this, I think:

Competition Season stays the same length. Students don't have to miss more school, mentors don't have to use up more vacation pay.
Challenger teams gain local fame. Super Regionals will be played in local hubs that are accessible for teams in that "zone" to visit. Ideally, many FRC teams would visit their local Super Regional because they have easy access to a higher-quality event.
Challenger teams will build local rivalries. More, local competition will increase the drive for mid-tier teams to do well at the regional level. Basically, look at what the NHL is doing with their playoffs: teams play through their division before making it to the conference finals before playing for the Stanley Cup. The model is making intense rivalries that are incredibly rewarding to watch, even during the regular season (see: Tampa smacking Montreal around during the season after being swept by them last year in the playoffs).
It's hella sustainable. Under this model, 50% of FRC teams get to experience a "Championship" feel event. And because the events are Localized, you can always add more Super Regionals as needed. They would also actually cut down on travel costs (because, again, localized). And because the events are smaller, they should also be cheaper.
It offers more teams the chance to compete, and not be blown out of the water by powerhouse teams. I know of at least one team this year that qualified for Champs but didn't go because they felt their robot was not good enough to make the experience worth it for the price they'd have to pay. Having an event that is actually at their competition level means that more teams can actually vie for a win without being "carried".

So how does his work with Detroit / Houston? FIRST can introduce the tiered-competition system at the same time as the Championsplit, and then roll out additional events almost immediately. Name one city (Say, Houston) as the World Championship, and then make Detroit a (larger) Super Regional (with teams from Ontario, Quebec, Michigan, MAR, NE, etc). Roll out smaller but still decently sized events in the Midwest, the Southeast, and West Coast (Minneapolis, Orlando / Atlanta, someplace in Cali). As far as I know, the contracts just say that there will be events in Detroit / Houston, not that they the events would be the "World Championships." After these contracts expire, FIRST can shrink Detroit to regular Super Regional size.

EricH

03-05-2015, 13:04

Well, that happens in many high school sports. Some schools are perpetually competitive, and stay in the top division, with the bottom of the division(s) experiencing more "churn" as teams rise and fall. [..]
Who do you think makes up the "churn" at Champs in the current qualification system? Pretty much all the teams that the OP proposed moving to the "B" champs. That's not exactly what I'm getting at here. As a whole, the number of sports teams stays the same, right? (Barring any school closings or openings or suspensions and all.) And between any two random years, the skill levels ain't gonna change all that much, right? Barring some random luck of getting a superstar on a low-level team, of course.

Not in FRC. Not only does the number of teams vary year-to-year, but the skill levels of those teams can change radically. Example: 330, from 2005 to 2007. 1 regional and world champs in 2005, didn't get closer than finalist to anything in 2006 (and didn't get picked for CMP elims), back on Einstein with two regional wins in 2007. If you went promotion/relegation, they'd be in Premier in 2006 and in Challenger in 2007, when you could sure argue the reverse ought to be true. This isn't the only team I can think of...

You HAVE TO have a mechanism for dealing with "improper relegation" here. I haven't heard ANYBODY say ANYTHING about it, which is why I keep bringing it up. In sports you've got the entire previous season's body of work, including the championship (if any) determining relegation/promotion. In FRC, you've got the current season's up to Championship and the previous Championship--sounds a bit off, no? Gary nailed it. Scandall got where I think this is going, long-term--the super-regional model isn't dead, just dormant for another 5 years.

Well, all the "reducing costs" talking points are already pretty weak. The team distribution doesn't support the current venue choices. There are too many teams in the Northeast, and not nearly enough near Texas. Circles are 150, 300, and 600 mile. Blue goes to Houston, Red goes to Detroit. There are already going to be a lot of teams closer to Detroit being assigned to Houston.
My point wasn't necessarily that that was the case, but rather that one of FIRST's stated items was to reduce team travel costs. If you're a Detroit team and get assigned to Houston because you're a "Challenger" team (and "Challenger" is in Houston, rather than being assigned to Detroit based on distance, FIRST looks an awful lot like a bunch of liars, no? I mean, unless they offer to pay your travel down there, which I highly doubt they'd do. Being on the west coast, let's just say that for us out here it's kind of irrelevant, we have to fly anyways, so I'm really hoping that Salt Lake City is being talked to now about 2021...

George Nishimura

03-05-2015, 13:05

I think it's unfair to have the previous year determine the ceiling for the following year.

The World/Challenger Championship is originally something I backed, but I can't think of a way to make this fair, especially with regards to RCA and double entry teams.

What happens in the case that all the RCA or EI winning teams are in the top 10% of robots? It only seems to work if you disregard the awards at the second "championship".

Personally, I'm beginning to believe that if you have to have two championships, the originally proposed model, after adding the ability for teams to swap bids, is the most fair. If the two winning alliances played each other it would be a lot like if we had 800 teams and 8 divisions last year (ie pre playoff format).

Also I think it would be a great shame if rookies weren't well represented at championship, and something I doubt FIRST would implement.

PayneTrain

03-05-2015, 13:58

you might see VA and the new Capital district going to Houston. They were originally going to put the VA FTC teams in the Houston. I think there is another reason, besides those given by FIRST for the location of the new CMP's. They may be carrots for the two states that have been fulling a large portion of growth for FRC. You can also assume that that growth will continue in the future making these locations adventitious.

I've been a big fan of having CMP trips that aren't financial boondoggles like what West Coast teams have to shell out to go anywhere so in my selfish monetary opinion I'd like to avoid Houston :)

Any kind of promotion/relegation system in FIRST is pretty ludicrous. I do see some merit in creating an Open Championship vs World Championship split but not if it means resigning teams to a division they can't compete in/needlessly dominate for no reason. I do think a CMP event with higher parity in the competition creates a more inspiring environment for everyone, so promotion/relegation in the frame of reference of an FRC season doesn't make any sense.

Michael Hill

03-05-2015, 14:03

I actually wouldn't mind a premier league and challenger league. One thing, however, I would request is teams start making "robot tour" videos after the event. One of my favorite things about championships is elite teams being very willing to give you a tour of their robots. One team that sticks out in my mind is 2056. If you ask them how their robot works, they're more than happy to show you how (provided you approach them during down time). Other teams are very good about this as well (1114, 254, etc.). Splitting into two championships (especially divided by talent) would really segregate the good from the great. If teams published "your" videos, I think it would really help this situation out. Heck, there could even be an award for the team that produces the best tour video (who says all awards have to be given out during the season?). It's a pretty tall order to have teams do this, I understand, but it would really satisfy one of the things I (and I assume many others) get out of champs.

Rachel Lim

03-05-2015, 14:09

I really like system B (and not just because then I'd have a good excuse to write another paper explaining the district point system to my team). I'm still going to keep hoping that in 2021 there will be enough districts that DCMPs / super DCMPs can filter into a single championship, partly because I think champs would seem more "real" (no one can argue that XXXX team should have been in the other one), and partly so that everyone will get to see at least their local-ish powerhouse teams.

That said, I don't think it will be accepted without any arguments. Here are some of the issues I think will come up:

Goals:
- FIRST: they don't seem to think a single championship/winner is a priority. If they don't, and continue not to, how much will they be willing to work with a system that will be causing them more work?
- "Average" teams: the teams typically un-/under-represented on CD, that FIRST seems to be aiming this structure at, but that we can't really tell what they think. Without knowing what percentage of teams are for/against this structure, it's impossible to tell--and since once again the more vocal group (minority?) is the group more likely to respond to surveys, getting accurate data probably won't happen.

Philosophy on winning:
- I've heard two different philosophies, both in FIRST and in general. Either:
- If everyone is a "winner," no one is truly a winner. It just cheapens winning.
- It removes the incentive to be best, the push to be best, and the inspiration in seeing (or being) the best.
Or:
- If everyone is "winner," everyone is happy. (Or maybe not "everyone" but a larger portion of teams)
- It creates a sense of accomplishment, a desire to keep going, and the inspiration in knowing that you can--and did--do something right.
- I think the majority of people on CD, which is generally mentors on at least fairly famous teams, fall into the first category. I understand that--I'd put myself in there too. But I do see why FIRST could think the second inspires more students. I do know students (and adults) who think that way.
- Would FIRST see splitting champs based on performance as falling too far into the first category? What balance are they trying to strike?

Location:
- From what I could tell from the recording/transcript of the meeting, FIRST does think they'll be saving travel costs for a significant number of teams.
- Telling a Michigan team to go to Houston, or a Texas team to go to Detroit, because they qualified for the "other" champs definitely doesn't fit in.
- Obviously this won't matter a ton for California / west coast teams--it's a full day of nonstop driving just to get into Arizona from the bay area (and it's not a very interesting drive)--but some other teams will not be as happy.

But XXXX shouldn't be there...
- There will undoubtedly be complains about who got into which one. There are already complains about the teams who have/haven't qualified for champs.
- Even with the best intentions, this could define a "second-tier" of teams, and someone at some point will be pointed out as "not deserving" their spot.

Then there's the whole issue issue that they may not truly understand what it's like to be on a FIRST team, despite their best intentions, as I said somewhere else with my analogy about my parents not letting me go to the lab. I think we all want what's best for as many teams as possible. FIRST HQ and CD just disagree about the best way to accomplish this, and based on the recording of the town hall meeting, it doesn't sound like either side is truly willing to listen--at least not yet. I'll continue to be optimistic and hope for the best.

Abhishek R

03-05-2015, 14:15

How in tarnation do you deal with a team that just got relegated last year and now has 3 regional wins, one EI, and one RCA, or somesuch impressive resume? Do you put them in the relegated CMP or in the top CMP? Eh? How about the team that won the whole thing last year, and is nowhere to be found this year? Eh? Fair warning, I'm going to keep asking this until I get an answer. It shouldn't be all that hard to figure out--it'd happen often enough, no? And it's happened often enough with one CMP already, somewhat.

I don't doubt that there are issues; there are always flaws in any system. I just thought it was an interesting take on the dual championship format that no one has really brought up before, and it actually has some precedence.

scottandme

03-05-2015, 15:36

That's not exactly what I'm getting at here. As a whole, the number of sports teams stays the same, right? (Barring any school closings or openings or suspensions and all.) And between any two random years, the skill levels ain't gonna change all that much, right? Barring some random luck of getting a superstar on a low-level team, of course.

Not in FRC. Not only does the number of teams vary year-to-year, but the skill levels of those teams can change radically. Example: 330, from 2005 to 2007. 1 regional and world champs in 2005, didn't get closer than finalist to anything in 2006 (and didn't get picked for CMP elims), back on Einstein with two regional wins in 2007. If you went promotion/relegation, they'd be in Premier in 2006 and in Challenger in 2007, when you could sure argue the reverse ought to be true. This isn't the only team I can think of...

I would argue that good FRC teams are highly consistent, since the mentor base and team structure make good teams, and that doesn't turn over all that rapidly. Most drastic changes in performance are a result of mentor related changes. Sure there may be exceptions like 330 - but go look through the list of what teams have won CA regionals over the last 4 years, it's a lot of repeats, no? I haven't seen many established teams rocket up and down on a year to year basis. It's normally a gradual increase or decline in performance, short of massive school/sponsor/mentor changes. Talking about the top 10-15% of FRC here...

Again, I'm not arguing for fixed divisions, there's no need to since teams will still be attending districts, regionals, etc with all teams. Splitting champs into performance tiers would be simple to do on a yearly basis.

My point wasn't necessarily that that was the case, but rather that one of FIRST's stated items was to reduce team travel costs. If you're a Detroit team and get assigned to Houston because you're a "Challenger" team (and "Challenger" is in Houston, rather than being assigned to Detroit based on distance, FIRST looks an awful lot like a bunch of liars, no? I mean, unless they offer to pay your travel down there, which I highly doubt they'd do. Being on the west coast, let's just say that for us out here it's kind of irrelevant, we have to fly anyways, so I'm really hoping that Salt Lake City is being talked to now about 2021...

Again, I don't buy that as a reason for the move to 2 events. If that was the reason, they did a horrible job picking venues. It's still a long bus ride or a flight from both coasts. Growth is FIRST's MO - and that's what this is about.

I have no problem with difficult travel to Champs, you go there to meet up with the best of the best. I'm less inspired by difficult travel to an event that might be less competitive than a District Championship, and only getting to see half of the best teams.

alopex_rex

03-05-2015, 18:11

If you're a Detroit team and get assigned to Houston because you're a "Challenger" team (and "Challenger" is in Houston, rather than being assigned to Detroit based on distance, FIRST looks an awful lot like a bunch of liars, no?

Our team works about an hour from Detroit, and I can assure you we would be VERY frustrated if one year we had to go to the Houston Championship, whether it was the more or less prestigious championship. Obviously the venues weren't picked solely on the basis of minimizing travel costs, but that doesn't mean you can say that that wasn't a real consideration: given the large number of teams in Michigan, and particularly the large number of Michigan teams that qualify for Champs, holding a championship in Detroit makes a lot of sense.

In general I think the geographic factor is the fatal flaw in any plan like this to differentiate the championships. For many teams in the Midwest/East one of the two championships is significantly closer than the other one, and forcing a team to go to the further one seems almost cruel.

JB987

03-05-2015, 19:22

Our team works about an hour from Detroit, and I can assure you we would be VERY frustrated if one year we had to go to the Houston Championship, whether it was the more or less prestigious championship. Obviously the venues weren't picked solely on the basis of minimizing travel costs, but that doesn't mean you can say that that wasn't a real consideration: given the large number of teams in Michigan, and particularly the large number of Michigan teams that qualify for Champs, holding a championship in Detroit makes a lot of sense.

In general I think the geographic factor is the fatal flaw in any plan like this to differentiate the championships. For many teams in the Midwest/East one of the two championships is significantly closer than the other one, and forcing a team to go to the further one seems almost cruel.

And yet those of us out in many other states are forced to travel great distances to Champs EVERY single year... Many sports hold their championships in a variety of cities (yes partly to share the access to economic advantages of holding the competitions) but also as a gesture of fairness to competing teams (home field advantages, etc...). Sorry, but it's hard to buy your argument for cruelty unless it applies to others as well.

Citrus Dad

03-05-2015, 21:35

I loved 971 and 701, particularly the incredible linkage the former used this year.
But if we deicded that anybody who seeds high or gets far in elims and all of those who won a regional were the only people who went to a "premier" championship, then it would feel almost fake to win a the "challenger" event. If all the winners go to one event, then the other event is left, not devoid of talent, but far more lacking in it. It would just be a really big regional event, except without 254, 1678, (probably) 971, etc. etc, and we get to see all of those teams at SVR. But 148, 1114, 624, I doubt we would ever get a chance to see in person without being among the winning group ourselves (in which case I would probably want to have a winner's championship to test our abilities against the best, ironically).

I'm not quite sure if you understand the premise of this thread. There are going to be two events of 400 teams each (800 teams total). Unless we change the format, they will almost certainly be divided geographically. The Texas teams (e.g., 148) will be in Houston; the Ontario teams in Detroit (e.g., 1114). In addition, California will almost certainly be assigned by Houston. So under the current proposal, 115 will never see 1114 at Champs even if you are the two best teams. And the best will never meet each other so you won't know which of the best you would be testing yourself against. Given that situation, would you still prefer to only go to the Premier event only and never the Challenge events? You can always choose not to go the the Challenge event if the team qualifies, so you won't be forced to go that event.

Citrus Dad

03-05-2015, 21:40

In my mind the most practical system would be to have Super Regionals with a CMP feel. (HOF, Scholarship Row, How To Conferences ...)Then the top teams qualify for Worlds. HOF RCA RAS have equal opportunity at the Super Regional level.

This idea does not solve any travel issues. For those that qualify it would add another level of cost, especially for teams not in the contiguous USA.

Are you proposing that Detroit and Houston would become Super Regionals? That's farther afield than what FIRST is proposing, even though the practical effect is that they will have a Northeast and Southwest North American Championship. My proposal is trying to stay within the objectives and constraints specified by FIRST.

Mark Sheridan

03-05-2015, 21:41

Citrus Dad

03-05-2015, 21:48

Our team works about an hour from Detroit, and I can assure you we would be VERY frustrated if one year we had to go to the Houston Championship, whether it was the more or less prestigious championship. Obviously the venues weren't picked solely on the basis of minimizing travel costs, but that doesn't mean you can say that that wasn't a real consideration: given the large number of teams in Michigan, and particularly the large number of Michigan teams that qualify for Champs, holding a championship in Detroit makes a lot of sense.

In general I think the geographic factor is the fatal flaw in any plan like this to differentiate the championships. For many teams in the Midwest/East one of the two championships is significantly closer than the other one, and forcing a team to go to the further one seems almost cruel.

It would be interesting to see a poll of the teams in Michigan/Ontario and Texas about their preferences--different levels of championships vs. geographic distribution. I honestly don't know the answer to that. However the poll would need to be weighted by the likelihood that a particular team would get to a championship event.

As for teams in the East, Detroit is still 12 hours from Washington and further from NYC and Boston (I went to Michigan). At that driving distance teams are more likely to fly, in which case distance doesn't really matter any more and air fares are driven as much by traffic volume as distance, particularly after a certain point.

Citrus Dad

03-05-2015, 22:05

My point wasn't necessarily that that was the case, but rather that one of FIRST's stated items was to reduce team travel costs. If you're a Detroit team and get assigned to Houston because you're a "Challenger" team (and "Challenger" is in Houston, rather than being assigned to Detroit based on distance, FIRST looks an awful lot like a bunch of liars, no? I mean, unless they offer to pay your travel down there, which I highly doubt they'd do. Being on the west coast, let's just say that for us out here it's kind of irrelevant, we have to fly anyways, so I'm really hoping that Salt Lake City is being talked to now about 2021...

First may lower the travels for a percentage of about 20% of FRC teams. For the remainder travel costs will largely remain unchanged because they will still fly in. The question then is whether the top tier teams in those 2 regions are interested in being locked into only those locations. This may be particularly true in Michigan where the District system already effectively excludes play with out of state teams. (I've heard those in the PNW bemoan the insularity of their season.)

Note that the event really can only be held where there is a covered stadium with an adjacent convention center. I think there's about a half dozen in North America: St. Louis, Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, Minneapolis and Vancouver. Las Vegas might have the convention center space to stage it.

Citrus Dad

03-05-2015, 22:16

You HAVE TO have a mechanism for dealing with "improper relegation" here. I haven't heard ANYBODY say ANYTHING about it, which is why I keep bringing it up. In sports you've got the entire previous season's body of work, including the championship (if any) determining relegation/promotion. In FRC, you've got the current season's up to Championship and the previous Championship--sounds a bit off, no? Gary nailed it. Scandall got where I think this is going, long-term--the super-regional model isn't dead, just dormant for another 5 years.

Promotion/relegation is about consistency year to year. It's also about one of the most important lessons that you can teach a teenager--patience and persistence. Year to year consistency is more likely to lead to sustainability. Erratic team performance is more likely to see the demise of that team. We need to encourage consistency while teaching patience and persistence.

As for moving to Super Regionals, I have no idea of how FIRST's proposed model moves that way if there is no single championship. Instead I see a proliferation of regional championships that starts looking like pre 1998 NCAA football.

EricH

03-05-2015, 23:02

Promotion/relegation is about consistency year to year. It's also about one of the most important lessons that you can teach a teenager--patience and persistence. Year to year consistency is more likely to lead to sustainability. Erratic team performance is more likely to see the demise of that team. We need to encourage consistency while teaching patience and persistence.

Let me ask you this: This whole competition is about inspiration (as well as winning). Would YOU, personally or as a team, be inspired by winning multiple events and then being told "Sorry, because you didn't do well last year, you can only go to the Challenger event, and you can't compete for the one true World Championship at the Premier event"?

Or would you be completely and thoroughly "annoyed" (to put it mildly--there are other terms that could be put in the quotes and be more accurate)? Annoyance and inspiration don't usually go hand-in-hand, mind you. Matter of fact, I would probably suspect a host of rather annoyed folks not bothering to stick around for future years, or writing nasty letters, or writing nasty internet posts. You get the picture.

I disagree on the whole premise of erratic performance seeing the demise of a team. I've got a number of counter-examples that I can think of fairly quickly of erratic or semi-erratic performance that have been doing this for a long time--some of them longer than your team.

And for the Super Regional model... What I see (obviously, this would be in about 5-6 years) is that the District Championships will disappear, being replaced by Super Regionals. Two Championships become one, held in some city to be determined (BTW, you should be including Indianapolis in your list). It's possible that the DCMPs move back a week, compressing the competition season, but I regard that as unlikely.

AdamHeard

03-05-2015, 23:04

dodar

03-05-2015, 23:29

Let me ask you this: This whole competition is about inspiration (as well as winning). Would YOU, personally or as a team, be inspired by winning multiple events and then being told "Sorry, because you didn't do well last year, you can only go to the Challenger event, and you can't compete for the one true World Championship at the Premier event"?

Or would you be completely and thoroughly "annoyed" (to put it mildly--there are other terms that could be put in the quotes and be more accurate)? Annoyance and inspiration don't usually go hand-in-hand, mind you. Matter of fact, I would probably suspect a host of rather annoyed folks not bothering to stick around for future years, or writing nasty letters, or writing nasty internet posts. You get the picture.

I disagree on the whole premise of erratic performance seeing the demise of a team. I've got a number of counter-examples that I can think of fairly quickly of erratic or semi-erratic performance that have been doing this for a long time--some of them longer than your team.

And for the Super Regional model... What I see (obviously, this would be in about 5-6 years) is that the District Championships will disappear, being replaced by Super Regionals. Two Championships become one, held in some city to be determined (BTW, you should be including Indianapolis in your list). It's possible that the DCMPs move back a week, compressing the competition season, but I regard that as unlikely.

But thats not how it works. If you win multiple events in one year, the previous year has no bearing.

If 2015 was the base for Premier/Challenger Divisions in FIRST, and Team A won 2 events while Team B was dead last at 2 events, Team A would go to Premier and Team B would go to Challenger.

But, if in 2016 Team A was dead last at both events, and Team B won both events, 2015 would have no bearing on 2017. Based upon 2016, Team A would be in Challenger and Team B would be in Premier.

EricH

04-05-2015, 00:07

But thats not how it works. If you win multiple events in one year, the previous year has no bearing.

If 2015 was the base for Premier/Challenger Divisions in FIRST, and Team A won 2 events while Team B was dead last at 2 events, Team A would go to Premier and Team B would go to Challenger.

But, if in 2016 Team A was dead last at both events, and Team B won both events, 2015 would have no bearing on 2017. Based upon 2016, Team A would be in Challenger and Team B would be in Premier.

So let me get this straight: You're adding complexity to an already complex system? (BTW, I don't think 2017 even factors in here, I'm going to assume that you're pointing at 2016 with that statement. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, but then I'm going to have to dose you with Occam's Razor.)

Just to make sure I understand, or not:
So, at the start of 2016, Team A is in Premier and Team B is in Challenger based on 2015 event results. For the 2016 Championships, Team B ends up in Premier, based on their 2016 results, and Team A ends up where based off of which year's results?

Citrus Dad

04-05-2015, 00:12

Let me ask you this: This whole competition is about inspiration (as well as winning). Would YOU, personally or as a team, be inspired by winning multiple events and then being told "Sorry, because you didn't do well last year, you can only go to the Challenger event, and you can't compete for the one true World Championship at the Premier event"?

And for the Super Regional model... What I see (obviously, this would be in about 5-6 years) is that the District Championships will disappear, being replaced by Super Regionals. Two Championships become one, held in some city to be determined (BTW, you should be including Indianapolis in your list). It's possible that the DCMPs move back a week, compressing the competition season, but I regard that as unlikely.

Remembers teams would already know if they were eligible for the Premier or Challenger champs at the START of the season. They would already have that expectation baked in. So they wouldn't face the disappointment that you're envisioning. And they also would know that they need to build a consistent program over time to advance.

But that said, I'm hearing enough reservations about system C that it may not be workable--it was just one of my 3 ideas. And I think there's probably even better systems out there.

As for the Super Regionals, I'm not seeing the path back to a convergence to a single championship once they move to a dual championship. Why would one of them fade away unless that one was already subservient in some fashion to the other? I think instead, as with the fight to form the BCS, interests would form to preserve the two championship mode. And like the proliferation of football bowl games in the 70s and 80s, we might see even further diffusion, not consolidation. Isn't that one of the laws of thermodynamics.

(And thanks for adding to the list of indoor stadiums.)

dodar

04-05-2015, 00:18

So let me get this straight: You're adding complexity to an already complex system? (BTW, I don't think 2017 even factors in here, I'm going to assume that you're pointing at 2016 with that statement. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, but then I'm going to have to dose you with Occam's Razor.)

Just to make sure I understand, or not:
So, at the start of 2016, Team A is in Premier and Team B is in Challenger based on 2015 event results. For the 2016 Championships, Team B ends up in Premier, based on their 2016 results, and Team A ends up where based off of which year's results?

No, for 2016, Team B would go to the Challenger Championships. And based on their end of the year points total, they would either go up or stay. Team A would, most likely, drop down to Challenger for next year after not making it to Premier Champs.

So, at the beginning of each year, each team is in either Challenger or Premier. And over the course of the year, they build up points. Then after all FIRST events are held, the top 50% in points from Challenger switch with the bottom 50% in points of Premier. Then you roll into next season and repeat the process.

asid61

04-05-2015, 00:20

I'm not quite sure if you understand the premise of this thread. There are going to be two events of 400 teams each (800 teams total). Unless we change the format, they will almost certainly be divided geographically. The Texas teams (e.g., 148) will be in Houston; the Ontario teams in Detroit (e.g., 1114). In addition, California will almost certainly be assigned by Houston. So under the current proposal, 115 will never see 1114 at Champs even if you are the two best teams. And the best will never meet each other so you won't know which of the best you would be testing yourself against. Given that situation, would you still prefer to only go to the Premier event only and never the Challenge events? You can always choose not to go the the Challenge event if the team qualifies, so you won't be forced to go that event.

I used 1114 as an example. My point, which I tried not to state blunty, was that this looks like a "winners' Champs" and a "losers' Champs" (this is hyperbole to explain what I am worried about), which is highly undesirable to me because of the selective removal of talent. At that point the so-called "Challenger" champs becomes a large regional.

EricH

04-05-2015, 00:43

No, for 2016, Team B would go to the Challenger Championships. And based on their end of the year points total, they would either go up or stay. Team A would, most likely, drop down to Challenger for next year after not making it to Premier Champs.

So, at the beginning of each year, each team is in either Challenger or Premier. And over the course of the year, they build up points. Then after all FIRST events are held, the top 50% in points from Challenger switch with the bottom 50% in points of Premier. Then you roll into next season and repeat the process.

OK...

Gary, can I trouble you to repeat yourself? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1479620&postcount=35)

Seeing as you're going to all the trouble to track the event points separately, why not just make it two separate leagues? It'd be one heck of a lot easier. And BTW, that already got shot down about a decade ago. So now you have to justify blocking teams from the top event even if they would merit attendance, even by beating multiple teams from the top event if that happens.

Honestly, if this split happens in the way you folks envision, YOU. PERSONALLY. get to tell all the students on any team who would be in the top event by wins etc. why they must go to the bottom event, despite apparently qualifying for the top event. That goes for each and every one of you who is a proponent of this idea. And trust me, if I were you guys... I'd be bringing some backup, just in case. My team had some students that really wanted to do a third event (including trying to get to CMP via waitlist this year). We had to tell them no--and it wasn't easy to decide that, despite the numbers lining up in favor of not going.

Folks, this is the Championship HQ is splitting, not the entirety of FRC. But if this proposal goes through, you just split all of FRC.

dodar

04-05-2015, 01:23

OK...

Gary, can I trouble you to repeat yourself? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1479620&postcount=35)

Seeing as you're going to all the trouble to track the event points separately, why not just make it two separate leagues? It'd be one heck of a lot easier. And BTW, that already got shot down about a decade ago. So now you have to justify blocking teams from the top event even if they would merit attendance, even by beating multiple teams from the top event if that happens.

Honestly, if this split happens in the way you folks envision, YOU. PERSONALLY. get to tell all the students on any team who would be in the top event by wins etc. why they must go to the bottom event, despite apparently qualifying for the top event. That goes for each and every one of you who is a proponent of this idea. And trust me, if I were you guys... I'd be bringing some backup, just in case. My team had some students that really wanted to do a third event (including trying to get to CMP via waitlist this year). We had to tell them no--and it wasn't easy to decide that, despite the numbers lining up in favor of not going.

Folks, this is the Championship HQ is splitting, not the entirety of FRC. But if this proposal goes through, you just split all of FRC.

I would hope the kids on the team would understand the 2-League/Championship System. If in the first year they dont gather the needed points to qualify for Premier, then next year they shouldnt be angry when they do win and qualify for the Challenger Championship and not Premier. If they get angry and upset, then that is on the team leadership for not having that well known.

I would hope, if that were my team, that they would strive to win that Challenger Championship so that next year the team can compete in the Premier League and hopefully fight for a Premier Championship.

I could introduce Freshman into the concept.
I could tell the Sophomores/Juniors/Seniors to either fight and strive to do the best this year so we can get into Premier next year. Or, tell them to strive for their best against the best in FIRST's Premier Division.

cadandcookies

04-05-2015, 01:47

While I love the location, I'm uncertain of the logistics. The Minneapolis Convention Center is more than a mile away from the new skyway-connected Vikings stadium site. That's a really long round-trip if the plan is to follow the St. Louis model, and put playing fields in a stadium, and 800 pits in convention area space.

On the other hand, the drive teams might love navigating their carts though the crowded Mpls skyway system during the business day. It'd be like that scene in the "Mighty Ducks" movie, only with robots instead of rollerblades.

I'd have to agree with you here, Don. Minneapolis/St. Paui area simply has too many logistical issues to host Champs here in its current format. If we were cool with just being in the MCC, it might be workable, but the new stadium is just too far away.

With regards to the promotion/relegation system, I haven't made up my mind about two championships, much less how assignment needs to work. I'd be worried that nobody is really getting what they want with the system-- die-hard competitiors aren't necessarily getting their best robots, and everyone else isn't necessarily getting to see any of the top 5% of teams that I'd say generates 95% of our inspiration. I'd echo earlier sentiments of this turning one of our championships very quickly into some sort of ghetto for teams who are perpetually on the edge of greatness.

In any case, I sincerely hope we only have to deal with this question until 2020.

EricH

04-05-2015, 02:07

I would hope the kids on the team would understand the 2-League/Championship System. If in the first year they dont gather the needed points to qualify for Premier, then next year they shouldnt be angry when they do win and qualify for the Challenger Championship and not Premier. If they get angry and upset, then that is on the team leadership for not having that well known.

I'm going to disagree with your last statement. Really simply, no matter how much we as leaders explain the system, they're still going to be upset. You should have heard my team trying to figure out getting into CMP after L.A., when we hadn't qualified. Let's just say that was not an easy discussion set on anybody--and we had the whole "this is what stuff has said since back before build" to refer to, among other things. I've been on the receiving end of a couple of those "you're not advancing because..." discussions--it doesn't often sit well with the kids for a few days at the least.

And it's still not on team leadership for not having it well known. It's on HQ for using a lousy system that traps them into this. After what they heard at the townhall, I think they'd be very reluctant to try something like this without asking some folks, and I'm pretty sure that there's enough folks willing to speak up and tell 'em it's a lousy idea that it'd be a non-starter. Not sure if we're dealing with a vocal minority or a silent majority on that, though.

This is basic human emotion, 101 level: The "Life isn't Fair"/"Why isn't it ever unfair in my favor?" discussion. It's quite possible to understand something rationally--and emotionally, it just makes absolutely no sense. So, for the first three or four years, AT LEAST, someone (read: whoever was responsible for the "split by levels", ideally) has to tell the kids that they can't go to the top-level championship even though they won everything because they are only rated at the second-tier level based on last year's results--which, by the way, have absolutely nothing to do with this year's results.

The reason I linked Gary's earlier post was this: this works well in the sports leagues because it's the entire season, including championships, and you never play teams in another tier. If you try to do it where you're playing against--and maybe even beating--teams in the other tier, you get some skewed results and lousy reactions/emotions running high. So you either split the whole durn competition, which we've already pointed out got shot down years ago when it would have been a lot easier, or you don't try any sort of relegation.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily mind doing a split along competitive lines, mind you. I just think that current year's data ought to be used, because the exact relationship between any two years in FRC is approximately zero. They just happen to use the same general vehicle and a certain "core" set of rules just happens to stay largely the same year to year--but that's not always the case. (Imagine deciding who went to the 2015 CMP based on the 2014 season...) So if I ruled FRC, I'd see how I could leverage the district point system to my advantage, maybe add a secondary set of "Inspiration" points (tacked to some awards, or awarded by judges for certain actions/impacts, or as a bonus for how long since you've been to CMP) to sort of help separate everybody by whatever, and bias one championship slightly towards "inspiration" and one slightly towards "competition". Of course, I don't rule FRC, so this is all hypothetical.

dodar

04-05-2015, 02:21

I'm going to disagree with your last statement. Really simply, no matter how much we as leaders explain the system, they're still going to be upset. You should have heard my team trying to figure out getting into CMP after L.A., when we hadn't qualified. Let's just say that was not an easy discussion set on anybody--and we had the whole "this is what stuff has said since back before build" to refer to, among other things. I've been on the receiving end of a couple of those "you're not advancing because..." discussions--it doesn't often sit well with the kids for a few days at the least.

And it's still not on team leadership for not having it well known. It's on HQ for using a lousy system that traps them into this. After what they heard at the townhall, I think they'd be very reluctant to try something like this without asking some folks, and I'm pretty sure that there's enough folks willing to speak up and tell 'em it's a lousy idea that it'd be a non-starter. Not sure if we're dealing with a vocal minority or a silent majority on that, though.

This is basic human emotion, 101 level: The "Life isn't Fair"/"Why isn't it ever unfair in my favor?" discussion. It's quite possible to understand something rationally--and emotionally, it just makes absolutely no sense. So, for the first three or four years, AT LEAST, someone (read: whoever was responsible for the "split by levels", ideally) has to tell the kids that they can't go to the top-level championship even though they won everything because they are only rated at the second-tier level based on last year's results--which, by the way, have absolutely nothing to do with this year's results.

The reason I linked Gary's earlier post was this: this works well in the sports leagues because it's the entire season, including championships, and you never play teams in another tier. If you try to do it where you're playing against--and maybe even beating--teams in the other tier, you get some skewed results and lousy reactions/emotions running high. So you either split the whole durn competition, which we've already pointed out got shot down years ago when it would have been a lot easier, or you don't try any sort of relegation.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily mind doing a split along competitive lines, mind you. I just think that current year's data ought to be used, because the exact relationship between any two years in FRC is approximately zero. They just happen to use the same general vehicle and a certain "core" set of rules just happens to stay largely the same year to year--but that's not always the case. (Imagine deciding who went to the 2015 CMP based on the 2014 season...) So if I ruled FRC, I'd see how I could leverage the district point system to my advantage, maybe add a secondary set of "Inspiration" points (tacked to some awards, or awarded by judges for certain actions/impacts, or as a bonus for how long since you've been to CMP) to sort of help separate everybody by whatever, and bias one championship slightly towards "inspiration" and one slightly towards "competition". Of course, I don't rule FRC, so this is all hypothetical.

To the first thing: qualifying to a single championship is wholely different than qualifying under a 2 league championship setup. Under a single championship, its almost win to get in. Under a 2 championship system, you are locked into a championship that you have to win into. If you are gaining Challenger points, you can only get into Challenger Championship. If that isnt put forth to the team at the beginning of the year, that is on leadership.

To the second thing: I agree. This is FIRST's fault to begin with; but if we are getting stuck with 2 championships for a while, I think this is the best option.

To the third thing: Like I said before, kids that are already on the team, should know how the system would go. New kids would come into the system knowing they either have to win their way to the Premier Division or do the absolute best to stay in Premier. I dont think it would be that hard to understand nor that hard to motivate the kids to strive to be better.

To the fourth thing: If you are in Challenger and win events where Premier teams do bad or worse than you, feel great about that. Because that gives you a better chance of moving up to Premier.

To the fifth thing: Wrong. Every year connects to each other. Do you want a bunch of one-and-done teams or do you want to build programs? How would FIRST be if 254, 1114, 233, 2056,... were all one-and-done teams? FIRST wouldnt be 1% as Inspiring as it is now; it is, because these teams are programs that sustain over multiple years. If you build a system that promotes success over periods of time rather than each individual year, you will build programs and thus FIRST as a program.

GaryVoshol

04-05-2015, 06:55

Note that the event really can only be held where there is a covered stadium with an adjacent convention center. I think there's about a half dozen in North America: St. Louis, Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, Minneapolis and Vancouver. Las Vegas might have the convention center space to stage it.
If by "adjacent" you mean within 1.1 miles, then Detroit qualifies.

iVanDuzer

04-05-2015, 09:31

I used 1114 as an example. My point, which I tried not to state blunty, was that this looks like a "winners' Champs" and a "losers' Champs" (this is hyperbole to explain what I am worried about), which is highly undesirable to me because of the selective removal of talent. At that point the so-called "Challenger" champs becomes a large regional.

That's why you make more "loser's champs," (which is an awful way to look at it) and make them local, to foster regional rivalries and regional fame. Teams that consistently get to the Challenger Championships will grow plenty of relationships with more local teams. And if the "powerhouses" are at the premier champs, then the Challengers can actually win and compete against teams of their own skill level. Basically, learn during regionals, and grow at the super regionals.

Super Regionals as a "Challenger Championship" model, as opposed to a "qualify for champs" model, does the same thing for mid-low tier teams that the current Championship event does now. Mid-tier teams can "prove" that they belong in the Premier Championship by winning the event. Low-tier teams get the inspiration of advancing to a performance-based event based on their actual successes they had in the season.

Will there be bitterness when teams that usually make it to the Premier Championship don't qualify and go to the Challenger? Yes, but there are plenty of teams every year that deserve to be at Champs with great robots, but don't make it in. In my opinion, having the chance at redemption, at winning an event that says "see? We could have competed at the Premier Championship", is a lot better than not competing at all.

Again, why are we looking at this as a "Two Championship" problem? FIRST signed a bunch of contracts, why can't they sign more? Turn one of Houston / Detroit into a Super Regional, and add in MORE Super Regionals (that are smaller, say, 200 teams) in regional Hubs.

Kevin Kolodziej

04-05-2015, 09:54

Minnesota could, so could Chicago, Orlando, probably somewhere in Texas, along with somewhere in California.

Mainly look for big convention centers. But, like I said, you'd have to sacrifice the stadium feel.

We're already sacrificing the stadium feel. It seems that most people are still unaware that in the original announcement it clearly says that all matches will be played in the convention centers. The stadiums are only for the opening and closing ceremonies. This is what I wanted to ask about at the town hall meeting but got cut off - I was able to talk to Done Bossi about it afterwards and he said currently only St. Louis and Atlanta are able to handle the current setup of pits in convention center and matches in an attached dome, and Atlanta is about to build a new stadium so its not an option. I specifically asked then how they intend to have 20,000 people watch the Einstein matches in a convention center (because in 2011 the division fields in the convention center were awful and didn't have enough room for their own teams) and he said they are working on a solution to that.

They want to give the experience to more teams. Playing matches in and never leaving the convention center is NOT the championship experience. Walking into the stadium this year and seeing all 8 fields under one roof was one of the best images I've seen in FIRST. Enjoy it next year - you'll never see it again if this continues the way it currently is.

What activities will be happening in each of the venues in each of the Championship host cities?

In 2015 and 2016, FIRST will host an expanded Olympic-style Championship throughout downtown St. Louis. In 2017, the St. Louis Championship will be similarly sized to the 2014 Championship held there

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

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

Steven Donow

04-05-2015, 10:06

BrendanB

04-05-2015, 10:16

We're already sacrificing the stadium feel. It seems that most people are still unaware that in the original announcement it clearly says that all matches will be played in the convention centers. The stadiums are only for the opening and closing ceremonies. This is what I wanted to ask about at the town hall meeting but got cut off - I was able to talk to Done Bossi about it afterwards and he said currently only St. Louis and Atlanta are able to handle the current setup of pits in convention center and matches in an attached dome, and Atlanta is about to build a new stadium so its not an option. I specifically asked then how they intend to have 20,000 people watch the Einstein matches in a convention center (because in 2011 the division fields in the convention center were awful and didn't have enough room for their own teams) and he said they are working on a solution to that.

They want to give the experience to more teams. Playing matches in and never leaving the convention center is NOT the championship experience. Walking into the stadium this year and seeing all 8 fields under one roof was one of the best images I've seen in FIRST. Enjoy it next year - you'll never see it again if this continues the way it currently is.

There are pluses and minuses to it.

IF you can provide adequate space around the fields, segment the pits from the fields so the traffic to/from the stands isn't going right through pit areas, and provide more seats it is doable. I won't say I loved the pit fields in 2011 but I did like that the commute to the stands was so much shorter than what we have had in Atlanta and St. Louis.

If they are going to keep 100 team divisions they are crazy you'll never have enough seats. If you do 50 team divisions the stands aren't that much of an issue anymore but I wonder if they have enough floor space to handle 400 pits, 8 competition fields, and 2 for practice?

Chris is me

04-05-2015, 10:33

We're already sacrificing the stadium feel. It seems that most people are still unaware that in the original announcement it clearly says that all matches will be played in the convention centers. The stadiums are only for the opening and closing ceremonies. This is what I wanted to ask about at the town hall meeting but got cut off - I was able to talk to Done Bossi about it afterwards and he said currently only St. Louis and Atlanta are able to handle the current setup of pits in convention center and matches in an attached dome, and Atlanta is about to build a new stadium so its not an option. I specifically asked then how they intend to have 20,000 people watch the Einstein matches in a convention center (because in 2011 the division fields in the convention center were awful and didn't have enough room for their own teams) and he said they are working on a solution to that.

They want to give the experience to more teams. Playing matches in and never leaving the convention center is NOT the championship experience. Walking into the stadium this year and seeing all 8 fields under one roof was one of the best images I've seen in FIRST. Enjoy it next year - you'll never see it again if this continues the way it currently is.

Wow, I can't believe I missed this before. This is just completely unacceptable.

They have stated they want to bring the "Championship Experience" to as many teams as possible, but to them the stadium really isn't essential to the championship experience? Have they no memory of 2011, how crowded the stands got, how unhappy people were that they didn't get to play in the Dome very much?

One of the only arguments I've seen against making DCMPs / "Super Regionals" a more champs-like experience is that you don't get the big event feel and importance of the stadium feel for Champs. If we are seriously going to be having World Champs take place on some mobile bleachers in a convention center, it's very hard to believe that we're going to have any more "magic" at Champs than we would at a DCMP event.

How can this be about preserving the championship experience if they are taking out one of the most iconic things that makes Champs what it is? This is a massive disappointment that weakens the Champs experience for absolutely everyone.

Put aside the "no true winner" argument for a bit (I'm really concerned they'll just fly the two winning alliances somewhere for a weekend to quiet this concern without changing anything else...), this is what outrages me the most. I thought the posts calling 2016 "the final Championship" were a bit of an exaggeration, until now...

JB987

04-05-2015, 11:00

Isn't Lucas Oil Stadium also an option (in regards to dome/convention center criteria?)

Also I hope FIRST really reconsiders having closing ceremonies in a completely separate arena after the mess that was this year's closing ceremonies...easy solution I see would be to have Einstein played in the 'closing ceremonies arena'. Maybe even throw in FTC finals too.

Can't wait to move our pit a mile away to arena where Einstein/closing ceremony would take place with this proposal:rolleyes: On another note regarding a two tiered system...FIRST has already indicated one of the motivations for the changes is to insure a large +/- 25% can benefit from the inspiration and experience of attending a Championship. Many posting in this thread have indicated much of that inspiration comes from "top tier/elite/whatever you want to call successful teams". Wouldn't a two tier system ensure that half of teams every year going to a "Championship" won't get the desired exposure to any of the top teams? As it now stands, teams at each event would at least interact with half of the top teams in a given year's competition.

Don and company (at the town hall) have indicated they are looking into ways for teams to cross geographic assignments and even mentioned they would consider ways to have champs from each event compete for a true world champion. Why open another can of worms with complex tiered systems when a simple compromise that results in a true champion could be facilitated?

George Nishimura

04-05-2015, 11:15

This is somewhat tangential to the discussion, but what about the idea of divisions being tied to qualification method?

For example, 3 divisions composed of teams who qualified through robot performance, and 1 division for everyone else.

It increases the competitiveness of at least 3 out of 4 divisions, while still giving non-robot focused teams representation at World's.

AGPapa

04-05-2015, 11:28

Can't wait to move our pit a mile away to arena where Einstein/closing ceremony would take place with this proposal:rolleyes: On another note regarding a two tiered system...FIRST has already indicated one of the motivations for the changes is to insure a large +/- 25% can benefit from the inspiration and experience of attending a Championship. Many posting in this thread have indicated much of that inspiration comes from "top tier/elite/whatever you want to call successful teams". Wouldn't a two tier system ensure that half of teams every year going to a "Championship" won't get the desired exposure to any of the top teams? As it now stands, teams at each event would at least interact with half of the top teams in a given year's competition.

Don and company (at the town hall) have indicated they are looking into ways for teams to cross geographic assignments and even mentioned they would consider ways to have champs from each event compete for a true world champion. Why open another can of worms with complex tiered systems when a simple compromise that results in a true champion could be facilitated?

The issue isn't not having a 'true champion', it's not having an event with all of FRC in one place. A two-tier system (which does not have to be complex*) allows for a championship event to continue as it is in the present, but also expands post-season play for more teams (which is HQ's goal).

As for the 'challenger' events not getting inspiration from the top teams, well, they wouldn't get that if they stayed at home, would they? This proposal maintains the status quo while adding an additional event for more teams. However, I think this is the strongest point against a two-tier system, but I'm not sure if it's worth destroying a unifying event.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that a system like isn't unprecedented. Off of the top of my head both College Football and European soccer have similar systems with the post-season broken up into tiers. In soccer the 'Europa League' is a tournament for teams who didn't reach the 'Champions League'. In college football only the top 4 teams can win the National Championship, but other successful teams still get bowl games to cap off their season.

I really like this two-tier system. It seems to check most boxes.
It has one championship for all of FRC.
It sends more teams to big post-season events.
It reduces travel costs.**
It avoids having a silly event over the summer to determine the world champ.
It collects more registration fees.
And it's completely scaleable.

*A simple solution like top X from each district go to champs, next Y go to nearest 'challenger' event would work. For regional teams something like all chairman teams and RAS/EI/Winners who seeded in the top ~40% of their event go to champs.

**More 'challenger' events can be added over time. Teams could qualify for their nearest one. For example, one could be added to the west coast.

R2D2DOC

04-05-2015, 11:49

How about finding enough volunteers?

JB987

04-05-2015, 12:39

dag0620

04-05-2015, 12:42

We're already sacrificing the stadium feel. It seems that most people are still unaware that in the original announcement it clearly says that all matches will be played in the convention centers. The stadiums are only for the opening and closing ceremonies. This is what I wanted to ask about at the town hall meeting but got cut off - I was able to talk to Done Bossi about it afterwards and he said currently only St. Louis and Atlanta are able to handle the current setup of pits in convention center and matches in an attached dome, and Atlanta is about to build a new stadium so its not an option. I specifically asked then how they intend to have 20,000 people watch the Einstein matches in a convention center (because in 2011 the division fields in the convention center were awful and didn't have enough room for their own teams) and he said they are working on a solution to that.

As much as I love going into the stadium, and getting to walk on the Dome floor Wednesday night in 2013 is one of my favorite memories of all time, loosing this set-up was inevitable.

As Don said, Atlanta and St.Louis are the only two cities with that set up. Atlanta is building a new stadium, and at the rate things are going The Rams will be leaving EJD, even if they do stay in St. Louis. There are other candidates where a Dome and Convention Center sit next to each other (Lucas Oil Stadium as an example) but they lack adequate physical connections between the two buildings that EJD/AC and GD/WCC had.

While the current championship format could have been prolonged, it would have to go away at some point. While having the majority of Champs in a convention center isn't quite as glitz and glam, it can work. As long as Champs is held in large enough exhibition halls, and they get the right people to run champs, they can do some amazing things to mimic the existing experience better then you think.

I hope though, as Steven mentioned, that Einstein is held in the arenas with closing ceremonies. As long as a decent break (2-3 Hours lets say) is scheduled between the end of division finals and Einstein, they could easily get teams and their essential equipment loaded on trucks to ferry them over to the dome/arena. Is it inconvenient for the teams actually competing on Einstein? Yes a little bit. Does it work better off overall for all the teams attending and wanting to watch? Yes.

These changes in terms of how a championship event will run definitely aren't as great as the current set-up, but they have to happen as we move forward.

(To be clear I'm talking about the setups at each Championship event, as for having two Championships, there's no reason for that).

Chris is me

04-05-2015, 13:07

As much as I love going into the stadium, and getting to walk on the Dome floor Wednesday night in 2013 is one of my favorite memories of all time, loosing this set-up was inevitable.

It's only inevitable if we stuck to an 8-field, >400 team Championship. A 4-field Championship could work in many cities, particularly if FLL and FTC are not also taking up dome space. We didn't have to give this up.

AdamHeard

04-05-2015, 13:09

AGPapa

04-05-2015, 13:13

Wouldn't the teams that would be relegated to the 'challenger' event actually be present at one of the two 'championships' in a mix found in the present model FIRST is pursuing and therefore not miss out on exposure to half of the top teams that will now be split between the the two events? They wouldn't have to 'stay home'. The total teams served would stand at 800...unless I am missing something?

I'm saying that the two-tier champs format is an improvement over the current situation (one champs). That's why I related the tiered system to the status quo. I recognize that this subsection of teams may be better served in a championsplit format, I'm just not sure if it's worth the cost of removing a single unifying championship.

Let's look at how things will scale in the future. Under the championsplit model more and more "Championships" will be added over time. What's now an event that has all the good teams would eventually be reduced to having a quarter or less of all the good teams. Students who see a cool robot on a webcast will probably never be able to see that robot in person, no matter how hard they work to reach the highest level of competition.

Meanwhile, in the tiered system a single Championship remains. Student's hard work is rewarded with seeing all of the best robots. Additionally, the goal of reaching this event will inspire many students. Meanwhile, many other 'challenger' events give other teams a goal to reach and a reward for a successful season. Teams that haven't been in the global spotlight will be able to show their talents in a large-scaled event. Many 'challanger' events can be easily added without worrying about diluting the championship (unlike in the championsplit model). So under the tiered system, we may be able to send more teams to a large-scaled event than in the championsplit system.

Green Potato

04-05-2015, 13:16

I like the sound of the 2-tiered championship with a lower tier and a higher tier, but I strongly oppose having your performance at a previous championship decide where you go for the next.

Think about it. I know a team X that did REALLY well in their regular-season events, looked like they could contend for Einstein, and then proceed to have their robot break down at STL. That team was much better than now their robot preformed, and could wind up dominating the "Challenger" championship because they're not really a "challenger," they simply had bad luck.

Likewise, teams change in ability level every year. Some teams are primary juniors and don't loose much after a year, some teams are senior-heavy and could struggle. Just because a team number stays the same doesn't mean that the composition of that team does.

Thus, I approve the 2-champ format (400 and 400), and really like option A on the OP. However, I would hold back on "relegation" or "Ascension" for reasons stated above.

Citrus Dad

04-05-2015, 14:14

"As for the 'challenger' events not getting inspiration from the top teams, well, they wouldn't get that if they stayed at home, would they? This proposal maintains the status quo while adding an additional event for more teams. However, I think this is the strongest point against a two-tier system, but I'm not sure if it's worth destroying a unifying event."

Wouldn't the teams that would be relegated to the 'challenger' event actually be present at one of the two 'championships' in a mix found in the present model FIRST is pursuing and therefore not miss out on exposure to half of the top teams that will now be split between the the two events? They wouldn't have to 'stay home'. The total teams served would stand at 800...unless I am missing something?

I think the question is whether a team is MORE inspired by seeing half of the really top teams at a single event than seeing top teams at a challenger event that are nearly just as good (and often has just as deep a history)? In addition, the teams at the challenger event are much more likely to be competitive than at a split event. In fact the split is more likely to make the championship LESS competitive because the top tier teams will see fewer competitors. That can be LESS inspirational if the weaker teams are thumped more easily.

FIRST hasn't shown that its explored this issue. It's acting solely on unsubstantiated conjecture. It needs to have a dialogue with the community about which approach is more satisfactory for the teams that are now in the bottom half of Champs or just on the margin of getting in.

Along these lines I think we should consider the difference between AYSO soccer and Little League baseball and their impact on kids' lives. (My family has experience with both.) AYSO focuses on participation and only holds local championships. Individual excellence is rarely rewarded (and even deflected at times.) Little League requires universal performance (with further recent rule changes moving further that way). It has an international championship in which individual performances are celebrated.

I can't claim a universal experience, but I haven't ever met anyone who lists AYSO as a seminal life-changing experience (my wife is the person with the closest experience of this type). What happens is that the best soccer players move to select teams where they continue their careers. For AYSO players its just another childhood activity that isn't really revolutionary.

On the other hand many Little League players look back at their competitive careers. Even among those who didn't play baseball after age 12 recall their team experience. The higher competitive intensity makes it a more memorable activity. It has a real impact.

FIRST's current proposal looks like AYSO and likely will blunt the momentum that FRC is generating for cultural change. Let's make it look more like Little League. FIRST has another program that look like AYSO--that's FTC. FIRST can use the geographic split for the FTC teams.

Citrus Dad

04-05-2015, 14:16

It's only inevitable if we stuck to an 8-field, >400 team Championship. A 4-field Championship could work in many cities, particularly if FLL and FTC are not also taking up dome space. We didn't have to give this up.

Please note that this thread presumes that the 800 team multi championship is inevitable. It's not productive to try to argue for a return to a smaller single championship.

Citrus Dad

04-05-2015, 14:33

I used 1114 as an example. My point, which I tried not to state blunty, was that this looks like a "winners' Champs" and a "losers' Champs" (this is hyperbole to explain what I am worried about), which is highly undesirable to me because of the selective removal of talent. At that point the so-called "Challenger" champs becomes a large regional.

Others have made suggestions about the Challenger champs could evolve into a number of Super Regionals, which is one answer. And others have pointed out that college football already works like this. There's a BCS that involves only 4 teams, yet there over 40 other bowl games. The teams playing in those games aren't complaining that they are playing in second tier post season events.

For many teams getting to the Challenger Champs will be their first goal and then moving on will be the next goal. Understand that we've just added 200 teams to Champs this year, and FIRST will be adding another 200 that would have never qualified before. They will be happy to just have any kind of event to aim for.

And we can't be overly worried about disappointing students. Trying to achieve true measured success is an important motivation. The "everyone's a winner" outlook that permeated kid's sports is falling into disfavor because it really isn't a good motivator. And what are we to do about the 2500+ other teams that don't qualify for either championship? How do we satiate their disappointment if that's so important?

And let's not forget the core principle used by FIRST to engineer cultural change: the competitive sports model. In that model, there are clear winners and losers and championships. Sports with multiple "champions" lose fan interest. College football recognized this in the late 1990s. College basketball went through dual NCAA/NIT champions into the 1950s before unifying. Pro baseball and football both unified competing leagues by first playing for a unified championship. Disappointment at not qualifying or winning are inherent in that model. And just as importantly is having a "top dog" that can be recognized by the sport's fans.

The tiered championships keeps the important incentives of clearly defining a winner while still opening up the festival experience to many more teams. Its a compromise to address the logistic problem of our expanding program while keeping the core of using the sports metaphor.

Citrus Dad

04-05-2015, 14:37

OK...

Gary, can I trouble you to repeat yourself? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1479620&postcount=35)

Seeing as you're going to all the trouble to track the event points separately, why not just make it two separate leagues? It'd be one heck of a lot easier. And BTW, that already got shot down about a decade ago. So now you have to justify blocking teams from the top event even if they would merit attendance, even by beating multiple teams from the top event if that happens.

Honestly, if this split happens in the way you folks envision, YOU. PERSONALLY. get to tell all the students on any team who would be in the top event by wins etc. why they must go to the bottom event, despite apparently qualifying for the top event. That goes for each and every one of you who is a proponent of this idea. And trust me, if I were you guys... I'd be bringing some backup, just in case. My team had some students that really wanted to do a third event (including trying to get to CMP via waitlist this year). We had to tell them no--and it wasn't easy to decide that, despite the numbers lining up in favor of not going.

Folks, this is the Championship HQ is splitting, not the entirety of FRC. But if this proposal goes through, you just split all of FRC.

As I posted earlier, we can easily discard system C and focus solely on A or B. The dual level championships is not dependent on using system C with promotion and relegation. Qualifying can be done within a season using either A or B. System A really wouldn't be different than the current system, just how they are assigned to events would differ. Under either A or B, teams would be assigned solely on their merit within that single season. There is no splitting into separate leagues or a splitting of FRC.

dodar

04-05-2015, 15:00

Chris is me

04-05-2015, 15:01

Please note that this thread presumes that the 800 team multi championship is inevitable. It's not productive to try to argue for a return to a smaller single championship.

I wasn't arguing for a single championship in that post - I just said that many cities would work as venues for a Championship with less than 8 fields (well, specifically 4). Even with 400 teams. My post applies for any number of Championship events.

Citrus Dad

04-05-2015, 15:03

Can't wait to move our pit a mile away to arena where Einstein/closing ceremony would take place with this proposal:rolleyes: On another note regarding a two tiered system...FIRST has already indicated one of the motivations for the changes is to insure a large +/- 25% can benefit from the inspiration and experience of attending a Championship. Many posting in this thread have indicated much of that inspiration comes from "top tier/elite/whatever you want to call successful teams". Wouldn't a two tier system ensure that half of teams every year going to a "Championship" won't get the desired exposure to any of the top teams? As it now stands, teams at each event would at least interact with half of the top teams in a given year's competition.

Don and company (at the town hall) have indicated they are looking into ways for teams to cross geographic assignments and even mentioned they would consider ways to have champs from each event compete for a true world champion. Why open another can of worms with complex tiered systems when a simple compromise that results in a true champion could be facilitated?

- First, many, many top tier teams will end up at the Challengers event. Based on this year under System A, from Northern California, 971, 846, 701 and 2085 would have been in the Challenger's event. I'm sure that others can list other similarly stellar teams that fall into that category. In addition, HOF teams that don't qualify for the Premier event would go to the Challenger event. Yes, the effect might be diluted, but the added 200 teams still would see top teams. And I don't think interacting with half of the top teams is a better outcome than with the FRC-wide excitement generated by having ALL of the very top teams in one venue. Diluting the field will dilute the interest.

- Second, sending the two "championship" teams off to play a final championship in front a few hundred spectators completely undermines the excitement that FIRST is trying to generate through the sports metaphor. The thrill of Einstein is felt by all of the spectators, not just the teams playing. Say focused on why FIRST constructed FRC in the way that it did. This isn't kids' soccer where everyone gets a trophy for trying. It's competitive to make it matter. If it doesn't matter then students will lose interest.

I posted about this in the Town Hall video thread: if the final championship just brings together the the top two alliiances in a different location, the top tier teams may decide that going to one or the other champsplit may not be worth the cost. They may decide going to a unified event like IRI is more attractive. IRI doesn't have many teams from the West traveling there now due to the cost, but that barrier disappears if those teams decide to go there instead of Detroit or Houston.

AChattin

04-05-2015, 15:24

For anyone who claims that teams have sustained success, or enough to reach the championships every year, let me show you the state of Indiana for a moment.

The best team in the state, year in and year out is team 234. If I had to pick a team that would be at champs every year, it would be them. In fact, going back to 2009, the only year they WEREN'T in Elims at champs was 2014, where they failed to qualify, despite having one of the best robots in the state. Is 234 now not allowed to go to champs in 2015? (where they made semifinals in their division).

Team 234 is the only team I would consider a "Tier 1" team, a team who is consistently at the very top every year.

That is the top, and most consistent team in the state of Indiana, as for the rest, teams have up and down years.

In the past 2 years, team 135 has won 3 events, and been an alliance captain at championships both years, in 2012, they weren't picked at one of their Regionals, and wouldn't be eligible. They improved in 2013, and were picked for eliminations at championships, which they wouldn't have been able to do in this format, and even then, would they even qualify for the "Real" Championships in 2014?

Team 447 had a great robot in 2013, winning an event and being a finalist in another, they then got to play with teams 118 and 610 at championships, I don't know about the general population of FIRST, but playing with dominant teams is inspirational to me, and it likely was for them.

Team 1024 has had a resurgence in the past 2 years, seeding high and winning the state championship in 2015. They reached the division semifinals this year, but they wouldn't have been able to in this format because last year, they didn't make champs with one of the best robots in the state.

QUALIFYING for champs with a regional system is "Fluky" and sometimes, the best teams don't make it, given that, is it fair to make teams ineligible to compete for a world championship next year, because of a fluke in the previous year? Or would people rather have a longer qualifying cycle where students may never get to compete for a championship at all?

And what about Rookie/ Sophomore teams? 5188 was the #2 pick in the state championship, would they be able to go? They were picked to be in eliminations, and wouldn't have been able to.

There are many more examples of teams that put together good robots nearly every year in Indiana, and sometimes the Pull out great ones, Teams like 45(2009), 71(2011), 829(2012), 868(2013), 1501(2010), and several other teams in the state that I am neglecting to mention.

What about senior-only programs? Should a team be disallowed from championships because a completely different set of students failed to qualify them for the "Premier" in a previous year?

What inspired me was working with the TOP teams at championships/IRI. I know if I was a student again, I wouldn't be nearly as inspired if I wasn't able to work with the ELITE teams.

Looking at a split champs system overall. Maybe some teams would be happy just to get a championship "Experience" but without teams like 1114, 16, 254, 118, and 148 just to name a few, It wouldn't feel the same to me.

Obviously I would prefer one large championship, but I realized one thing, competitively, 2 split championships are exactly the same as one big one, as long as you bring the champions together in a final series. Yes, the environment wouldn't be the same, bus as people want to name a champion, you're just adding more divisions. You wouldn't see every powerhouse team every year, which would be sad, but you would see some, which I believe for a "Tier 2" team would be far better than being at a "consolation" championship.

JB987

04-05-2015, 17:51

I'm not inherently against using a two tier system. I do have concerns with the logistics (the details where the Devil lies sometimes). Out of fairness, will events be rotated between cities, will regional event teams have the exact same chance as district teams to place in the premier league using some new district/regional performance metric, and do you weigh previous or current season results more (or equal) when doing so? Can a hybrid of options b and c be formulated? I prefer weighing current season results more than previous seasons for some of the reasons previously posted by others but I wonder if teams would front end load on early season regional events for their one or two only shots at qualification to ensure enough time to arrange flights and hotels, etc...

I certainly would prefer a two tiered system over an added, minimally attended final championship after the two events to identify a 'true' champion...as long as qualification opportunities are the same across the board regardless of regional or district origin.

dag0620

04-05-2015, 18:30

It's only inevitable if we stuck to an 8-field, >400 team Championship. A 4-field Championship could work in many cities, particularly if FLL and FTC are not also taking up dome space. We didn't have to give this up.

As far as I know, there's just not a lot of large sporting arenas that can fit 4 FRC fields with attached or adjacent 60,000-80,000 sq ft required to host 400 team's pits.

If there's venues out there I haven't heard about, I'd love to be proven wrong. From my research though, I haven't seen much beyond the already discussed.

Alex2614

04-05-2015, 22:21

The only problem with a two-tiered system is the team logistics. Many teams are just flat broke after getting all the way to champs. Many school districts limit the number of days students can miss for a single activity (our school board just did this this year).

This is why I like the World Festival/World Championship model. FLL does this quite nicely, actually. Qualification requirements for the World Festival (Or US Open, whatever you want to call it) are the same as you mentioned, but instead of then sending them onto a DIFFERENT championship, they're just done for the season.

I actually like THIS version of two championships better than the current one-championship model. This ensures more teams can go, but you still have one real world championship. The experience of going to the US Open isn't really any less than the world championship, just the value and the wight of the awards might be within FIRST. But sponsors will still love it, they won't care if it is the World Festival/US Open or the World Championship. So, more teams can get hardware, you've settled the geographic separation dilemma (each event will still feature teams from all over), and you make those that care about having one "true" world championship happy. It's like a win-win-win-win.

Citrus Dad

04-05-2015, 22:56

EricH

04-05-2015, 23:08

I can't tell which proposal you support. What FIRST is currently proposing will not result in a single world champion unless they make some sort of add on event which they haven't actually agreed to or even laid out a structure for. Are you supporting one of the proposals in this thread?

Before I explain what he's saying:

FIRST has most definitely left the door wide open for a single world champion. They haven't said anything about HOW, yet, and I would imagine that given the reaction they'll be taking their time and talking to people. So maybe, before making threads about how we SHOULD do it, we wait for them to make a proposal, and if it's reasonable we go with that, and if it isn't we let them know? And maybe, instead of assuming that only your proposals are under discussion, allow others to float some?

Anyways: He's proposing that ONE of the two events not be a Championship at all. FLL World Festival is not a championship, though it is held at the FIRST Championships--it's a festival. This sort of thing was suggested before the Town Hall. This is neither of your active proposals.

Citrus Dad

04-05-2015, 23:09

After reading the discussion here, I am proposing System D. I am hearing that a number of teams that might be in the second 400 qualifiers to Champs want the opportunity to be at the same venue as the very top teams. On the other hand, I think it's very important to have a unified championship decided at a single venue where there are a large number of spectators. Particularly if FRC ever wants to get to TV that is an absolute necessity.

System D starts with general qualifying using A (status quo) or B (district points) to create a pool of 800 teams. Then a modified version of district points is used to select the first hundred and the second hundred teams. The first hundred are assigned to the First Century champs; the second hundred to the Second Century Champs. The remaining 300 teams are then assigned on geographic basis per FIRST's proposal. The site of each champ alternates each year. This way the 300 geographically assigned teams get to play with the very top teams every other year, and they still play with a set of very high quality teams the other year.

Citrus Dad

04-05-2015, 23:21

Before I explain what he's saying:

FIRST has most definitely left the door wide open for a single world champion. They haven't said anything about HOW, yet, and I would imagine that given the reaction they'll be taking their time and talking to people. So maybe, before making threads about how we SHOULD do it, we wait for them to make a proposal, and if it's reasonable we go with that, and if it isn't we let them know? And maybe, instead of assuming that only your proposals are under discussion, allow others to float some?

Anyways: He's proposing that ONE of the two events not be a Championship at all. FLL World Festival is not a championship, though it is held at the FIRST Championships--it's a festival. This sort of thing was suggested before the Town Hall. This is neither of your active proposals.

I started this thread to get other ideas. And I like that idea as well. The problem is that FIRST wants the top tier teams to be at the same event as the "festival" teams.

As to whether FIRST will propose a single world championship event, they only did so after a huge outcry on CD. It was not in their original proposal.

So I'm floating other proposals and opening up the discussion. The problem I've seen is that many are simply opposed to even expanding to 800 teams which means splitting into 2 events. I sympathize with FIRST on increasing access. But they seem to be tone deaf to those teams that are focused on achieving competitive excellence. (And there other aspects of excellence.) I'd rather that they develop a proposal in a transparent fashion after exploring different options. Going off to cook up a solution in isolation is not the right way, so, no, I'm not going to sit back and wait for FIRST to offer up a new solution. They may be too wedded to it by then to be open to further discussion. I've participated in too many organizational and political processes as part of my job to not understand that its almost a "done deal" when a public pronouncement is made. And FIRST HQ has already compromised its trust with much of the community with its initial proposal. Let's insist that they make the second go around more transparent.

Kevin Leonard

05-05-2015, 00:01

And FIRST HQ has already compromised its trust with much of the community with its initial proposal. Let's insist that they make the second go around more transparent.

+1 to this.

EricH

05-05-2015, 00:11

Here's a proposal, just kind of at random. It'd make some things a smidgen tougher, but I think it could go a long way towards making things a little more interesting.

Assumption: FIRST backs away from their stated intent of geographic sorting of teams (corollary, they do it because an awful lot of teams think this is all about the competition).
Assumption: FIRST wants to have a top-tier and not-top-tier event. (See previous assumption.)
Given: FIRST wants to maximize inspiration.

Proposal: In addition to whatever base model is used, just as an example we'll use district points, each team earns some number of C.I. points (Championship Inspiration). C.I. points can be earned based on: Time since last championship visit, at the rate of +-X points/year; Winning certain awards, e.g. RCA and EI and the like; judges' nomination; HoF and Legacy status; I'm sure there could be other ways.

The championships now get names: Recognition and Inspiration. I'm sure y'all can guess where this is going.

Teams that qualify to attend via winning an event, or by points, are automatically assigned to Recognition--at first. That's when the fun begins. All CMP teams are sorted by their C.I. points. Any spots left in Recognition are filled from one end of the sorted list; all other teams go to Inspiration. First event "grand winner" (champion or CCA) gets to send representatives to the other if they want to.

The other trick that could be pulled with C.I. Points happens to be "balancing the inspiration", where you aim for "equal" inspiration at both events--but I think I know how that proposal would go over around here.

Citrus Dad

05-05-2015, 01:05

Chris Hibner

05-05-2015, 08:41

AGPapa

05-05-2015, 09:17

In a two tiered model, I'm concerned that it will be difficult to get teams to attend the 2nd tier event. Attending these events is expensive. Teams will do a lot for a shot at becoming a world champion. I'm not sure that teams will care enough to spend that much money for a shot at winning the FRC NIT.

I seriously doubt that even a significant fraction of teams go to champs with the intention to win it all. The second tier event(s) will still give teams a fun large-scale event to end their season.

PayneTrain

05-05-2015, 10:59

In a two tiered model, I'm concerned that it will be difficult to get teams to attend the 2nd tier event. Attending these events is expensive. Teams will do a lot for a shot at becoming a world champion. I'm not sure that teams will care enough to spend that much money for a shot at winning the FRC NIT.

I don't think it's an issue, but sweetening the deal with stuff like qualifying the winners of the Open for the World Champs the next season could help.

Citrus Dad

05-05-2015, 12:24

Here's a proposal, just kind of at random. It'd make some things a smidgen tougher, but I think it could go a long way towards making things a little more interesting.

Proposal: In addition to whatever base model is used, just as an example we'll use district points, each team earns some number of C.I. points (Championship Inspiration). C.I. points can be earned based on: Time since last championship visit, at the rate of +-X points/year; Winning certain awards, e.g. RCA and EI and the like; judges' nomination; HoF and Legacy status; I'm sure there could be other ways.

Other award category to add to the CI points - GP. Also, perhaps the Chairman's Award is given at the Inspiration Champs, and teams qualified at the Recognition Champs can send their RCA presentation team to that event.

This proposal is so out of the box that it really fits with FIRST's innovative way of redesigning competitive games to lead to interteam cooperation (i.e., coopertition.)

Citrus Dad

05-05-2015, 12:33

I seriously doubt that even a significant fraction of teams go to champs with the intention to win it all. The second tier event(s) will still give teams a fun large-scale event to end their season.

I agree with this sentiment. Maybe the top third believe that they have any chance at winning the championship. Virtually none of the rookies and wait list teams believe that; the teams traveling on Chairman's and EI are focused on that award; and many third bots in Regional champs are enjoying that they simply qualified.

I ran in the NCAA championships. I never imagined that I would be competing for the win (there was a two-time Olympic silver medalist in my event who set the record for most NCAA titles.) I went to compete with the best athletes and to meet many of them while enjoying a great competition. But I also got much of that same experience from running in a couple of high level invitationals. The NCAAs was a season-long goal and season ending reward for me. I expect that's the case for most FRC teams.

And many NCAA basketball teams are very happy to play in the NIT. In fact two other tournaments have sprouted up to meet the demand from teams wanting post-season play. That's why I think that some form of a two-tiered championship will satisfy the desires of most FRC teams.

ehochstein

05-05-2015, 13:01

the teams traveling on Chairman's and EI are focused on that award; and many third bots in Regional champs are enjoying that they simply qualified.

2826, 2512 and 987 qualified for championships by winning the Chairman's Award.

4265 qualified for championships by winning the Engineering Inspiration.

2826 and 987 also won a Regional Event.

Would you say these teams focused on Chairman's/EI and not the robot game?

Lil' Lavery

05-05-2015, 13:23

I agree with this sentiment. Maybe the top third believe that they have any chance at winning the championship. Virtually none of the rookies and wait list teams believe that; the teams traveling on Chairman's and EI are focused on that award; and many third bots in Regional champs are enjoying that they simply qualified.

I don't have the time or energy to type up my full thoughts on this thread yet, but I want to briefly respond to this.
Team 1671 2015- Qualified via RCA
Team 5012 2015- Qualified via win as "3rd robot"
Team 1241 2013- Qualified via Engineering Inspiration
Team 973 2011- Qualified via waitlist
Team 177 2010- Qualified via waitlist

Chris Hibner

05-05-2015, 13:33

I agree with this sentiment. Maybe the top third believe that they have any chance at winning the championship.

I'm going to pile-on with Sean...

I don't agree with this. Given the serpentine draft, four robot alliances, AND the proliferation of cheesecake (I hate that term, BTW), anything can happen. I don't see why the vast majority of teams there wouldn't believe that there's some possibility.

I agree that the vast majority of teams don't go there expecting to win, but most teams should say "hey, anything can happen."

Andrew Lawrence

05-05-2015, 13:34

I don't have the time or energy to type up my full thoughts on this thread yet, but I want to briefly respond to this.
Team 1671 2015- Qualified via RCA
Team 5012 2015- Qualified via win as "3rd robot"
Team 1241 2013- Qualified via Engineering Inspiration
Team 973 2011- Qualified via waitlist
Team 177 2010- Qualified via waitlist

Nobody is saying that one has to win an event to be a competitive team, but that you are more likely to get competitive teams by looking at event winners. Yes, there are outliers as you've mentioned here, all of which are very capable and deserving robots for the championship level that qualified by means other than winning an event, but they are exceptions to the rule, not examples.

IKE

05-05-2015, 13:36

scottandme

05-05-2015, 13:43

I don't have the time or energy to type up my full thoughts on this thread yet, but I want to briefly respond to this.
Team 1671 2015- Qualified via RCA
Team 5012 2015- Qualified via win as "3rd robot"
Team 1241 2013- Qualified via Engineering Inspiration
Team 973 2011- Qualified via waitlist
Team 177 2010- Qualified via waitlist

That's an argument for the district model. CA and ON are notoriously hard to qualify from, since you have to play through some of the best in FRC.

2015 is aberrant due to cheesecake. As far as I can see (1) robot who was a "3rd robot" qualifier made elims (out of 128) in 2014.

Steven Donow

05-05-2015, 13:52

That's an argument for the district model. CA and ON are notoriously hard to qualify from, since you have to play through some of the best in FRC.

2015 is aberrant due to cheesecake. As far as I can see (1) robot who was a "3rd robot" qualifier made elims (out of 128) in 2014.

Can't that trend also be related (perhaps insignificantly) to the switch to 8 divisions? ~42% of teams in a division being in elims in 2015 vs. 32% being in elims in 2014

scottandme

05-05-2015, 14:08

Can't that trend also be related (perhaps insignificantly) to the switch to 8 divisions? ~42% of teams in a division being in elims in 2015 vs. 32% being in elims in 2014

For sure - the %'s are probably less informative than the total number of teams "participating" in elims.

2013: 96
2014: 128
2015: 256

While 100 team fields are less than ideal, splitting to 8 fields caused a noticeable decline in the depth and overall competitiveness of each field.

IKE

05-05-2015, 14:40

For sure - the %'s are probably less informative than the total number of teams "participating" in elims.

2013: 96
2014: 128
2015: 256

While 100 team fields are less than ideal, splitting to 8 fields caused a noticeable decline in the depth and overall competitiveness of each field.

How so? I have heard others say this, but I don't find any actual evidence of such.
Many predicted "stand outs" didn't make it to the finals of their divisions, and there really did not seem like a lack of scoring capability capping scores. Lots of #1 alliances didn't win their division, which means that there was enough depth to form competitive alliances.
I don't think the mix would have dramatically changed 2014 either.

AdamHeard

05-05-2015, 14:43

PayneTrain

05-05-2015, 15:16

All of these teams would've qualified on merit under the district system. The regional model does a poor job of sending the best teams.

This. With the floodgates opening on the waitlist but some bigger areas stuck in the old model, maybe FIRST should normalize regional participation into the district points system? You're requiring teams attend two events to qualify via this method and spend $9k in reg fees, but everyone in the district model already does that.

RufusBarbarossa

05-05-2015, 15:23

2826, 2512 and 987 qualified for championships by winning the Chairman's Award.

4265 qualified for championships by winning the Engineering Inspiration.

2826 and 987 also won a Regional Event.

Would you say these teams focused on Chairman's/EI and not the robot game?

Clearly teams like 2826 and 987, as well as my own team (2614) which win RCA AND Win an event are focused on both Chairman's/EI AND the robot game

Being good friends with many people from 4265, I know that they acknowledged that their robot was not one of the best and did not expect to be picked before 4th pick. Further, they were cheesecaked extensively by 2826 to include a can grabber, and likely would not have been picked otherwise. Basically what I'm saying is that although during build season they focused on the robot game, but acknowledged their robot's inferiority at CMP, and so focused mostly on EI while there (I also know they were very saddened when they didn't win EI)

I don't know much about 2512, so I can't say anything about them other than possibly cheesecake :D

It's interesting to note that all of the finalists playing on the field on Hopper were Chairman's award winners. Neat factoid most people probably don't know

PAR_WIG1350

05-05-2015, 15:34

scottandme

05-05-2015, 15:59

How so? I have heard others say this, but I don't find any actual evidence of such.
Many predicted "stand outs" didn't make it to the finals of their divisions, and there really did not seem like a lack of scoring capability capping scores. Lots of #1 alliances didn't win their division, which means that there was enough depth to form competitive alliances.
I don't think the mix would have dramatically changed 2014 either.

Cut the depth of each field in half. Field winners were the 1,2,4,1,2,1,1,2 seeds. 2014 had 1,1,5,5. 2013 we had 1,2,3,5. Fields were significantly less deep across the board - and your shot at winning Einstein was dependent on which field you ended up on. No offense to any of the teams on Curie, but nobody was even close to 1114+148. They had ~20 point cushions on the rest of the division through quals, QF's, SF's, and F's. That's partially attributable to the game dynamic, but Einstein turned into a less deep version of division finals.

Elim scores weren't bad, but that's mainly due to the fact that 3rd robots didn't have much of a role on strong alliances (failure of game design), and a few were picked purely for "cheesecakeability".

3467 was our "4th robot" in 2014 (29 of 32 picked), but they were a 2x District Winner and a 1st round selection at NE DCMP. Most "3rd robots" didn't have those qualifications this year.

2012 I watched 1114,2056,4334 topple 67,2826,4143
2013 I watched 33,469,1519 beat 987,2415,2959 (after having to go through 254,2468,11)
2014 our alliance (2590,1625,1477,3467) squeezed past the MSC champs (33 & 27, along with 175,334)

I didn't see anything comparable to that this year - to some extent it was shifted up to Einstein, but I didn't see those deep, skilled "IRI-lite" alliances this year. 1671 being the notable exception, not sure how they slipped that far.

Kevin Leonard

05-05-2015, 17:15

3467 was our "4th robot" in 2014 (29 of 32 picked), but they were a 2x District Winner and a 1st round selection at NE DCMP. Most "3rd robots" didn't have those qualifications this year.

I didn't see anything comparable to that this year - to some extent it was shifted up to Einstein, but I didn't see those deep, skilled "IRI-lite" alliances this year. 1671 being the notable exception, not sure how they slipped that far.

To be fair, 3467 shouldn't have slipped that far either.

I'm interested to see how the dynamic of the game would have changed if divisions were as deep as they were in 2013 or 2014.
I think that most alliances would be able to clear out every normally available tote, instead of just a select few of them.
More matches would have been decided on can races alone.
I'd wager that if we had a traditional 4-division championships, then upside-down totes and step totes would have actually mattered to win on Einstein.

But that's meaningless conjecture.
I'm not sure Championships being weaker overall matters as much, as long as the best are there, and they eventually rise to the top.

Citrus Dad

05-05-2015, 20:09

I would prefer the two to be stand-alone events that are full "regional" championships.
I would like to see FIRST then do a head to head championship from the two regionals at some other date/time/location. This is not so much to indentify the one true champion, but to turn that into a TV special. The quality of those 2 alliances should be quite high, and worthy of Television. Having it as a seperate event could allow for a higher production level (in terms of TV) type event. The proram could have some highlights from the two other championships, and then lead into matches for these two alliances.

If FIRST really wants to be known and change/influence culture, having a good TV special would go a long way.

Problem: there won't be 20,000 people in the stands. TV wants an event to show that it has crowd interest. (My favorite sport track & field has this problem now.) The final championship can't be held in isolation with little apparent enthusiasm. And viewers will wonder why the semifinals had 20,000 viewers and the final has a relative handful. Also TV wants a "story" that is both engaging and easy to explain. In track meets there often will be several key competitors. The producer will tell the spotters/prep folks that they must pick only one favorite and one rival to make the presentation compelling. (I know several of the TV spotters for the Olympic track broadcasts.) Packaging a presentation is a bigger process than simply setting up the event.

Citrus Dad

05-05-2015, 20:15

I don't have the time or energy to type up my full thoughts on this thread yet, but I want to briefly respond to this.
Team 1671 2015- Qualified via RCA
Team 5012 2015- Qualified via win as "3rd robot"
Team 1241 2013- Qualified via Engineering Inspiration
Team 973 2011- Qualified via waitlist
Team 177 2010- Qualified via waitlist

I would add 5136 who was on our alliance last year, but this is a VERY short list given the hundreds of teams that have qualified. General policies have to be made for general situations, not for exceptions. This is why we require vaccinating the general population even though we know a few people will be harmed in the process. The general outcome is so large that it outweighs the few exceptions. (And now I've probably stepped into another controversial example...:rolleyes: )

Citrus Dad

05-05-2015, 20:20

2826, 2512 and 987 qualified for championships by winning the Chairman's Award.

4265 qualified for championships by winning the Engineering Inspiration.

2826 and 987 also won a Regional Event.

Would you say these teams focused on Chairman's/EI and not the robot game?

The solution is that 2826 and 987 send their 3 member RCA team to the Inspiration championship and their robot to the Recognition championship if they so choose.

I think the question here is which is the better alternative:

- Geographically allocated super regionals that are unlikely to bring together the most like-minded teams, or
- True world competitions that focus more on either field competition or means of inspiring STEM outreach, or
- One true world championship in one location and another world competition which might lead to qualifying for the next year's world championship?

I like options 2 or 3.

Until we see a proposal from FIRST for a unified championship competition in the current model, any discussion about that prospect is speculative.

Citrus Dad

05-05-2015, 20:25

I feel like this might be a workable compromise. If you look at it as a method of implementing region switching, then it isn't too far from FIRST's current plan.

And another note for Method D: if you assume that the first and 2nd 100 are distributed in proportion to geographic distribution, travel costs are reduced for 87.5% of the teams, thus meeting FIRST's stated goal pretty well.

Alex2614

05-05-2015, 23:25

I can't tell which proposal you support. What FIRST is currently proposing will not result in a single world champion unless they make some sort of add on event which they haven't actually agreed to or even laid out a structure for. Are you supporting one of the proposals in this thread?

Personally, I don't really care about having a single champion. The model I support is having one "lesser" championship, aka the US Open or World Festival for rookie all-star, district points, etc. qualifications, and a world championship for chairmans and winning on the field. I apologize for the confusion, but it was my understanding that the winners from the "lesser event" could then compete at the championship, which is a logistical nightmare.

But I like the system I outlined above because you still get a representation from all regions (which you don't with FIRST's model) and you get one "real" champion for those that care about that.

I dislike FIRST's system not because of not having one champion, again I don't care about that. I dislike it because of the geographic restrictions.

The Boy Scouts tried having two national jamborees in 1973, one in Idaho and one in Pennsylvania. Most disliked it not because there wasn't one "true" jamboree, but because it divided the community by geography.

dodar

05-05-2015, 23:30

Personally, I don't really care about having a single champion. The model I support is having one "lesser" championship, aka the US Open or World Festival for rookie all-star, district points, etc. qualifications, and a world championship for chairmans and winning on the field. I apologize for the confusion, but it was my understanding that the winners from the "lesser event" could then compete at the championship, which is a logistical nightmare.

But I like the system I outlined above because you still get a representation from all regions (which you don't with FIRST's model) and you get one "real" champion for those that care about that.

I dislike FIRST's system not because of not having one champion, again I don't care about that. I dislike it because of the geographic restrictions.

The Boy Scouts tried having two national jamborees in 1973, one in Idaho and one in Pennsylvania. Most disliked it not because there wasn't one "true" jamboree, but because it divided the community by geography.

You dont want one "lesser" championship but there will always be one if there are 2. One will have worse robots, one will have worse RCA teams(thats not a slight to teams, just using "worse" to keep context), one will have worse fields, one will have worse amenities. Any system that has more than 1 championship, will have event disparity.

Alex2614

05-05-2015, 23:34

You dont want one "lesser" championship but there will always be one if there are 2. One will have worse robots, one will have worse RCA teams(thats not a slight to teams, just using "worse" to keep context), one will have worse fields, one will have worse amenities. Any system that has more than 1 championship, will have event disparity.

Ask any kid in FLL that attended the U.S. Open if it felt like any "less" of an event. I only used that word because it was more descriptive. The only complaints I have heard from the FLL U.S. Open is that the event is poorly run and LegoLand is a terrible venue for it. There have been a few teams from WV represented both there and in St. Louis. The kids that went to the open were no less inspired and the event was no less exciting.

To clarify: 2nd place teams from FLL events are eligible for the U.S. Open. It is also open to those U.S. Tournaments who are not eligible to send their champions to the championship due to the lottery system.

Gregor

05-05-2015, 23:47

Ask any kid in FLL that attended the U.S. Open if it felt like any "less" of an event. I only used that word because it was more descriptive. The only complaints I have heard from the FLL U.S. Open is that the event is poorly run and LegoLand is a terrible venue for it. There have been a few teams from WV represented both there and in St. Louis. The kids that went to the open were no less inspired and the event was no less exciting.

To clarify: 2nd place teams from FLL events are eligible for the U.S. Open. It is also open to those U.S. Tournaments who are not eligible to send their champions to the championship due to the lottery system.

I competed at the Open in LEGO Land in grade 8.

I agree with everything you said there. It felt exactly like a real tournament competition was strong, and the venue was awful.

dodar

05-05-2015, 23:53

Ask any kid in FLL that attended the U.S. Open if it felt like any "less" of an event. I only used that word because it was more descriptive. The only complaints I have heard from the FLL U.S. Open is that the event is poorly run and LegoLand is a terrible venue for it. There have been a few teams from WV represented both there and in St. Louis. The kids that went to the open were no less inspired and the event was no less exciting.

To clarify: 2nd place teams from FLL events are eligible for the U.S. Open. It is also open to those U.S. Tournaments who are not eligible to send their champions to the championship due to the lottery system.

Looking at FLL's structure from the FIRST website, you cannot compare their seasonal setup to FRC's.

To use the US Open as your example and compare it to a FRC Championship would be wrong. The US Open, or any FLL Open, would have to be compared to IRI.

Alex2614

06-05-2015, 00:22

Looking at FLL's structure from the FIRST website, you cannot compare their seasonal setup to FRC's.

To use the US Open as your example and compare it to a FRC Championship would be wrong. The US Open, or any FLL Open, would have to be compared to IRI.

Not necessarily. The U.S. Open, from what I've heard from teams, is actually like a "championship experience," which IRI is not. Sure IRI has the best robots, but beyond that it is a small event in comparison. The U.S. Open in LEGOLand is an official event. If you get first place you go to the championship (assuming your competition is eligible). If you get second (or your tournament doesn't go to worlds), you go to the open.

Plus, I I wasn't directly comparing FLL event to FRC. I was comparing the concept, comparing FLL's championship and FLL's US open. The kids get similar transformative experiences at both events. But one has just a bit more hype and some extra "weight."

Jacob Bendicksen

06-05-2015, 00:26

I think the World Festival/World Championship format works well in FLL - the looks on my kids' faces when they qualified said it all.

However, I'm not sure that the Festival/Championship format would work for FRC as well as it does for FLL. The FLL community doesn't have the (I'm having a hard time phrasing this) continuity of the FRC community. With FRC, the best teams in the world are world-famous year after year, whereas in FLL, a team is only well-known for a year if they score insanely highly on the course. As a result, FLL teams get really excited about qualifying for a championship, whereas FRC teams get really excited about qualifying for the championship.

That's why the World Festival/World Championship format wouldn't work for FRC.

dodar

06-05-2015, 00:27

Not necessarily. The U.S. Open, from what I've heard from teams, is actually like a "championship experience," which IRI is not. Sure IRI has the best robots, but beyond that it is a small event in comparison. The U.S. Open in LEGOLand is an official event. If you get first place you go to the championship (assuming your competition is eligible). If you get second (or your tournament doesn't go to worlds), you go to the open.

Plus, I I wasn't directly comparing FLL event to FRC. I was comparing the concept, comparing FLL's championship and FLL's US open. The kids get similar transformative experiences at both events. But one has just a bit more hype and some extra "weight."

The US Open is invite only. FRC Championship is pretty much earn your way in. FLL Opens are FLL's IRI.

Alex2614

06-05-2015, 00:39

The US Open is invite only. FRC Championship is pretty much earn your way in. FLL Opens are FLL's IRI.

Again, proof of concept. If this has morphed in the recent year or two, then I must have missed it because I've stepped back a bit from FLL in the past year or so. But it is my understanding that for 2nd place teams, they're "in."

There used to only be THE US open in California. They might have become more privatized in recent years, but again, the concept is still the same. And they're not a group of teams competing in a high school gym. It's a big venue with lots of big exciting things going on, and a truly transformative experience. While IRI is fun, it is not nearly as much of a "championship experience" as the FLL U.S. one in California is.

And THAT is my main point. Regardless of how they're run, it's still second place teams and a transformative championship experience. I've heard similar stories from FLL students and mentors after returning from STL and from California. My point is that having the second-place teams going to a different event that is not technically THE championship, but still offers similar experiences and inspiration is not a bad thing. Again, if the U.S. Open has changed in the last year or so I'm unaware. But I'm speaking to the way it was before.

EDIT: Just browsed the website. The Open has changed since I was involved in FLL programming. I'm speaking to the way the Open used to be run, which was one single event for US 2nd place teams or 1st place teams for events that didn't win the world festival lottery. This is the concept to which I'm speaking. Either way my original point is about the transformative "championship experience" and whether that is lessened by having one "real" championship and one lower level championship. And the answer to that is a solid no. Sorry for the confusion. I didn't realize things had changed.

Peter Matteson

07-05-2015, 09:21

Team 177 2010- Qualified via waitlist

And 2007 (Championship Winner), 2008, 2009 all off waitlist.
2011 Defending Champion bid got us in for a Championship Finalist. We had a season where we had 2 Finalists (WPI & Hartford), 2 Industrial Design awards, and a WFFA, but still technically didn't qualify in season. I like to call that season the best arguement for district style qualifying, because when points were calculated that season we would have been #2 or #3 in a New England district.

Lil' Lavery

07-05-2015, 09:30

I would add 5136 who was on our alliance last year, but this is a VERY short list given the hundreds of teams that have qualified. General policies have to be made for general situations, not for exceptions. This is why we require vaccinating the general population even though we know a few people will be harmed in the process. The general outcome is so large that it outweighs the few exceptions. (And now I've probably stepped into another controversial example...:rolleyes: )

5136 didn't win the world championship in 2014. All of the teams listed did. If you expand to Einstein qualification alone, the list expands greatly*. When you limit to world champions, as I did, of course the list is short (the list of world champions period is short).

Of the world champions since 2010, a full 25% qualified via the methods you described as not expecting a world championship. If 25% of the population had negative reactions to vaccines, vaccines wouldn't be the immensely beneficial force that they are.

*Just 2015 Einstein:
20, 337, 900, 1255, 1671, 1923, 2512, 3476, 4265, 5012 - 10/32 teams - 31.25%

Citrus Dad

07-05-2015, 17:02

5136 didn't win the world championship in 2014. All of the teams listed did. If you expand to Einstein qualification alone, the list expands greatly*. When you limit to world champions, as I did, of course the list is short (the list of world champions period is short).

Of the world champions since 2010, a full 25% qualified via the methods you described as not expecting a world championship. If 25% of the population had negative reactions to vaccines, vaccines wouldn't be the immensely beneficial force that they are.

*Just 2015 Einstein:
20, 337, 900, 1255, 1671, 1923, 2512, 3476, 4265, 5012 - 10/32 teams - 31.25%

The appropriate probability is the number of teams that qualified out of the pool of non-Regional captains and first picks. That would be the right probability. That's more like 10/200 or 5% is my guess. (Pulling out the data is very time consuming.)

In addition, this year was very weird for 3rd and 4th picks. We picked two rookies and two second year teams for very specific reasons during the season that I expect won't ever arise again. A look at 2014 would be better for a representation of past and future games.