ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective [Archive]

EricH

07-05-2015, 21:05

I’m seeing a lot of discussion about various forms of 2-Championship-splitting, many attempting to get one true World Champion. But there’s another factor to play in. FIRST specifically stated that the reason for the ChampionSplit was to increase the inspiration of Championship by allowing more teams and still being able to fit in. Whether you have to attend Championship to be inspired is a matter for discussing elsewhere.

I think I know somewhat of WHY they made that choice—it’s consistent with FIRST’s goals from the get-go—I just think they made a mistake by overlooking the competitive spirit of the teams. I’ve been around a while, so bear with me. I’m going to take us all way, way, way back to before this whole thing got started…

Most of us have heard the name “Dr. William Murphy” at events. He’s the one who founded the Woodie Flowers Award. But he’s also one of the people directly responsible for FIRST.

Your reading for today comes from Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-05/army-one-mind)—the relevant portion is quoted, but the entire article is a good read. In 1987, a doctor named William Murphy died and left his most prized possessions to his son, a doctor named William Murphy Jr. Not long after that, Murphy Jr. invited Kamen, who was already a successful inventor of medical devices, to his home. When, through casual conversation, Kamen learned that neglected somewhere in his friend's house, jammed into a cluttered closet or packed in a box, there was a Nobel Prize — the actual Nobel Prize diploma that his friend's father had received in 1934 for his treatment of anemia — something fired in Kamen's brain. Suddenly he could see it clearly: We're celebrating the wrong stuff. We should celebrate the heroes in science and technology the way we celebrate sports figures and entertainers. We need an organization directed at kids that exists solely for inspiration and recognition of science and technology.
Take a very close look at that last line. Remember that. I want to say that I remember hearing that Dean was helping clean out said closet and helped find said Nobel—probably a legend, though.

In 1989, Dean founded a non-profit. To give it its full moniker, the United States Foundation for Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (USFIRST, or as it is far more commonly known, FIRST) was founded for exactly that purpose. This foundation has a vision: "To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders." And a mission: Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership. (Both from http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision)

Sometime around then, Dean met a certain distinguished MIT professor with a ponytail: Dr. Woodie Flowers. Woodie taught one of MIT’s most popular classes, which happened to include an engineering competition (which itself was wildly popular). Dean apparently thought this was a really great idea to accomplish the mission, vision, goal, and name of FIRST.

In 1992, the FIRST Robotics Competition made its debut, in a high school gym in Manchester, NH. 28 teams, playing on a “corny” field, with robots built from, among other things, parts from a dot-matrix printer. These robots were about the size of an FTC or VRC robot; their controls were tethered. But the next year, 26 teams came back (or for the first time, joined in). And the next year there were more. And more. And more. By 1996, there were regionals in a few places; the National competition was held at Epcot in various places. In 1999, alliances were added: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” had taken hold in strategy, knocking off a lot of top robots, and so collusion, which wasn’t preventable, was required! By 2003, Epcot had been outgrown, so the FIRST Championship moved to Houston, then to Atlanta, and is now in St. Louis. Robots have gotten bigger, faster, more powerful—by the time I saw my first FRC robot (1997, in a post-season demo), they were nearly the current size. And FIRST has expanded its offerings: FLL in 2001, FTC starting around 2006 (depending on who you ask), JFLL in 2004.

FIRST has always tried to maximize the teams attending the Championship: in addition to qualifying by winning/RCA/EI/RAS, they’ve used a variety of methods to try to maintain 25% attendance, or once every 4 years. This has included even/odd team numbers in even/odd years and a points-based system (win award, get points, get over X points and go or something like that). Currently, it’s win/RCA/EI/RAS, Legacy/HoF, District rank, or the waitlist based on “longer time means more chances”. (Bonus trivia: It wasn’t until around the time alliances came along that there were ANY restrictions on attendance, besides attending one regional. That’s right, any team in FIRST could attend, just by paying for it. My, how times have changed.)

But there’s been one message that’s been piped through, year after year after year after year (OK, repeat that about another 20 times). “It’s not about the robots.” From the 2003 (or so) Kickoff: "at some point in the next six weeks you are going to start feeling like you are involved in a robot building contest. Then you are in serious trouble" -Dean Kamen (Note: I found this by a spotlight search.) If you’ve watched a Kickoff, or a Championship, Dean always gives homework: the homework is always about either growing FIRST or inspiring more people, or both.

Given some of the responses to the ChampionSplit, which is specifically to increase the Inspiration, I think some folks “are in serious trouble” (y’all know who you are). FIRST’s goal, FIRST’s reason for existence, is Inspiration. Not Competition (the C in FRC—incidentally, this is the only FIRST program that uses “competition” in its name). This move is about maximizing the Inspiration, with just a little easier time finding venues to boot (and maybe some other benefits that may or may not actually materialize).

This was never about Competition. Except as much as Competition contributes to Inspiration.

That being said, because the vehicle of choice is in fact a competition, I do believe that one world championship alliance does need to be crowned, OR the championships need to be specifically designated as “North” and “South” or some other designation that emphasizes their status as completely separate events. But intentionally splitting the championships so that all the competitive teams are at one and everybody else is at the other is probably not going to help maximize the Inspiration factor. My challenge to everybody is this: Find a way to maintain the Inspiration at or above current levels, at both sides of the ChampionSplit, and still get a single World Champion Alliance. Maybe there is no solution at all to this problem. Maybe it’s simple. Maybe it’s complicated. Bring it on, there’s more than 6 weeks to go, so if we can’t solve this I don’t know what we’re doing here.

GaryVoshol

07-05-2015, 21:24

And FIRST has expanded its offerings: FLL in 2001,
FLL first showed up at Disney for the 2001-2 season (as a pilot of the World Festival), but the first game was in the 1998-9 season. And there was a pilot the year before that. World Festival started in full force at Houston in 2003.

Andrew Lawrence

07-05-2015, 21:45

Thank you for the history, Eric. It is always nice to learn about the beginnings of the organization that so many of us have dedicated our passion to.

You make a very clear statement about FIRST's main purpose being inspiration, something that I myself and I'm sure most others will agree with. Inspiration and recognition are without a doubt the goals of everyone here. And I will also agree - FIRST is not about the competition. It is about inspiring others to pursue excellence and recognizing the achievements of those who do.

However in order to understand how to best accomplish this mission, we need to understand the best ways to inspire and the proper way of handling recognition. And I believe this is where the disconnect is between the people involved in FIRST. We are all striving for the same goals, however our solutions on how to accomplish these goals are different. A rule I live my life by is that there are no bad people in the world. Everyone wants to do something good. Everyone in FIRST knows the importance of inspiring the future, recognizing others for their outstanding accomplishments, and the irreplaceable positive impact it can have on the world around us. These people dedicate their passion to this program because every single one of us knows it works. We may differ in what we do and how we do it but we are united in why we do it, and our motivations and end goals are the same.

When it comes down to it, every debate in FIRST, be it the championsplit, mentor involvement on teams, or resources and time allocation, is based on what we as individuals see as the best way of accomplishing these goals that we all believe in. In fact many times a lot of us get so caught up in arguing between our methods of accomplishing these goals that we weaken how effectively we can accomplish them just to prove that our way is better.

Some people see the competitive aspect of FIRST as a distraction from the fun of the whole thing. That those who focus on winning detract from the students' experience via mentor involvement and the creation of an unfair playing field. Conversely some believe that the competitive aspect of FIRST is one of the most effective methods of inspiration, and that a competitive team culture will not only push students to pursue excellence, but also be more likely to help them achieve it. I'm not going to say which is right or which is wrong, or if there even is a truly right answer.

I will say this: Step away from the idea of FIRST being a competition or not a competition. Put down the idea of how teams are run and how they should be run. Tell me what you think is the most effective way to inspire excellence in those around you, and the best ways to recognize it for those who have accomplished it, and tell me why. And this is open to everyone who reads this. I want to know what everyone thinks are the best ways of accomplishing our shared missions.

When the FIRST community finds the best ways to do these things, the answer on how we should act as an organization will be clear.

John Retkowski

07-05-2015, 21:53

PayneTrain

07-05-2015, 22:16

I've been stewing on this for a long time (some would say a month!) but between finals and taking on additional team responsibilities in a mini-crisis I haven't been able to adequately put it all on paper so I know exactly why the split is so bizarre and why I don't think it's the right move. There are a lot of ingredients in the stew so I pick out one every now and then to think about.

Some have said that if you chase excellence, you catch greatness. On 422, the general direction the team has been steered into is to chase greatness and catch something we're proud of (seasons like this year are why we aren't ready to take that next step yet). What does this mean to us specifically? Qualifying for championships is something that we think we should do every year. Not making the big show makes for a disappointing season in our book. Our goal is to make it as deep into CMP eliminations as we can make it. If we can just get one round closer to Einstein, that's a success for us.

These are not the only goals for 422, but these goals act as a great cinderblock on the accelerator while we try to wheel this team into hopefully being one of the best teams in FIRST in the next century or so. Pushing for these goals makes students want to work more and learn more, which means they want to build the skills and knowledge base while experiencing the crucible of an FRC season and bringing to light intangibles of leadership qualities, networking, critical thinking, and maybe if we're lucky, some charisma :rolleyes:.

When you split the championship event, you could make an argument that you take have the edge off of these goals we set. We're not in it to win (check our record if you don't believe me) but the pursuit of winning is a very inspiring tool for 422 and hundreds of other FRC teams. The pursuit of that kind of recognition is valuable. Not only can we take accomplishments home to our friends and families, but they can be leveraged for future support and grow the program to inspire more people. In short, the question everyone should ask themselves is "At what point would the successful inspiration opportunity of championships be eliminated by certain changes, both already in motion and proposed?"

FIRST has a mission, a vision, and a history. It has a founder and a legend. It has a board of directors, a staff, volunteers, and sponsors. It has students, parents, mentors, coaches, teachers, and alumni. It has a unique meaning to the millions of people that have ever been involved with it or inspired by it, and we would all do well to recognize this fact.

efoote868

07-05-2015, 22:35

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to EricH again.

Appreciate the history, and challenge accepted.

iVanDuzer

07-05-2015, 23:08

I've heard a lot of people say a lot of stuff about Inspiration.
"More teams at two Championships will inspire more kids!"
"Splitting the playing field will be less inspiring!"
We can argue about this until we're blue in the face (and we have), but I think a lot of people are missing another letter in the FIRST acronym...

Recognition. A huge part of FIRST is that it recognizes excellence, whether it's on-field accomplishments, or designing a cool thing, or coming up with a neat way to program your robot.

Recognition means giving the Top Teams the stage they deserve to compete and show off what they've been up to. That's the Championship (or at least what it's evolved into).

Recognition means cheering when you see your robot included in an Event Recap video (bonus points if your robot was actually doing something).

A big part of Inspiration is Recognition. It's not just discovering that you can do this thing, but it's that other people can see and appreciate what you do. As a student, and as a mentor, the moments I saw my fellow competitors at their most excited was when they got their first medals. It's more than just the robot, and winning; it's the recognition of all the work you've done. If your robot moves, you've probably put in some serious hours to make it move. Who cares if we're not as good as 1114 or 2056 or whoever? We worked our butts off for six weeks to build something and now we have a tangible symbol of our success around our necks. We can bring these medals to school on Monday and show everyone and be just as big a deal as the basketball kids or the football kids.

Recognition is good. Recognition inspires. Recognition builds champions (and not just on the field).

The challenge with Recognition in regards to the Championsplit is that we're basically in the same basket as with Inspiration.
"Two Championships means more teams can be recognized for their accomplishments and dedication."
"Two Championships means that the winners are robbed of the true recognition they deserve."
Oi vey, here we go again. Except I think there's another level of recognition we're missing.

The Recognition of Science and Technology in the general population.

Some people have said that splitting the Championship follows the format other high-school sports follow, like football and basketball. There aren't any High School National Championships, so FIRST doesn't need them either! Except football and basketball aren't really lacking in terms of widespread recognition, are they? FRC is a niche sport (so niche that some people here won't even call it a sport at all!), so let's look at another niche sport that celebrates excellence and intelligence: the Spelling Bee.

I mean, how dramatic is a Spelling Bee? It's a bunch of kids standing up, staring into space, trying to remember how many Ds are in rhombidodecahedron. And yet, the Spelling Bee is so recognized we have Hollywood movies (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0437800/) about it (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2170299/). What does FIRST have? A documentary that aired once or twice on PBS and is basically just a Black Eyed Peas concert with some robots tacked on to it? I want a Robert Downey Jr. movie where he builds a robot just to stomp on the teacher who failed him in Grade 10 Science like two decades ago!

In my opinion, the next step FIRST should tackle is continuing to Make FIRST Loud. Making FIRST Loud means making it more attractive to the general public. Why is the National Spelling Bee televised nationally, and Einstein isn't?

Making FIRST Loud means more Recognition... for Everybody! Tell me, is your high school basketball game televised nationally during Prime Time on ESPN? Well, my robot was. That's what I think we should work towards. When ESPN starts airing FIRST alongside the National Spelling Bee (I just googled it - they even air the preliminaries!) and the World Poker Tournament, we can go back to focusing entirely on Inspiration. When TSN starts airing event highlights from the Waterloo Regional, we've done our job.

The question that hasn't been asked (and we should ALL be asking) is:
How does the Championsplit impact the R in FIRST?

In my humble opinion, the Championsplit will make FIRST quieter. Big Media doesn't give any time to us with one event, and now we have to convince them to give us time for two? If you think that's easily doable, then I have a set of Toronto Maple Leafs playoffs tickets to sell you.

Don't think we need Big Media? I think we really do. FIRST is about changing the culture, and obviously we've done amazing things, but really, we have a long way to go. Ask anyone, and they probably at least know of the Spelling Bee, or the World Poker Tournament. But have they heard of FIRST?

Competitive Speed Walking is better well known than FIRST. It is an Olympic sport, but still...

Eric obviously knows his history, and I want to thank him the amazing read. I haven't been around FIRST for as long (2007 Waterloo), but I've noticed some things. I've noticed Dean pushing teams to be recognized in their community and in their school and in their media. I've noticed three words repeated ad nauseum: "Make FIRST Loud." I remember hearing about Will.I.Am and thinking "whoa, people might listen to us now."

In terms of Inspiration, the Championsplit makes sense. Or it doesn't make sense. It's a bit of a wash and the jury is still out. But in terms of Recognition? FIRST is taking a big step back. Actually, I think they're flat out running the other way.

Don't get me wrong - Inspiration is a huge part of FIRST. It is! FIRST has inspired me in so many ways, and I'm not even remotely interested in a career in Engineering, or Science, or Math. But so often, we put Recognition in the corner to give Inspiration the spotlight, when both should get curtain calls.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go watch Jason Bateman swear at some kids and try to win a spelling bee. And if you've managed to read through this whole thing, then you deserve to join me. I'll grab the popcorn.

Lil' Lavery

08-05-2015, 10:31

Richard Wallace

08-05-2015, 11:22

What audience needs to provide recognition to science and technology? Is it our peers? Or is it the unwashed masses? Is the recognition of a FIRST team via awards or competition achievements the same as the recognition of science and technology?To cite (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision) the obvious:"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."

Dean Kamen, FounderEmphasis mine. The audience is the world.

Pault

08-05-2015, 12:10

To cite (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision) the obvious:Emphasis mine. The audience is the world.

Which is why I am so concerned by the part of Frank's blog responding to the communities initial reaction in which he talks about the goals of FIRST.

I personally believe that Championship is about two things – Inspiration and Recognition. I don’t think I’m going out on limb here. I believe some percentage of our teams deserve recognition. These are the teams that win the awards and have the great robots, strategy, and skill necessary to perform at the highest levels on the field. Those teams rightly get attention and accolades from the community for their tremendous accomplishments, and, I think, help drive the aspirations of teams that someday want to be able to perform at that level.

This isn't just a disconnect between the teams and FIRST HQ, this is FIRST forgetting one of the key components of their own mission. It was not long ago that "Make It Loud" was one of FIRST's favorite catchphrases, but I haven't heard anything about it in an entire year.

Citrus Dad

08-05-2015, 12:42

Which is why I am so concerned by the part of Frank's blog responding to the communities initial reaction in which he talks about the goals of FIRST.

This isn't just a disconnect between the teams and FIRST HQ, this is FIRST forgetting one of the key components of their own mission. It was not long ago that "Make It Loud" was one of FIRST's favorite catchphrases, but I haven't heard anything about it in an entire year.

From the lastest FRC email from FIRST:

Make it LOUD on Capitol Hill - Registration Deadline is Thursday, May 14th! We are looking for 6 more teams to join FRC Team RUSH 27 and many other FIRST teams at the second annual FIRST National Advocacy Conference on June 14-16th in Washington, DC!

To change our culture to one that values STEM, we must get the policy makers in Washington, DC on board with knowing about and supporting FIRST and STEM in education. For the first time ever, the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education Act contains support for teams participating in after-school mentor-based STEM engagement programs like FIRST. The more FIRST teams we can have advocating for this, the better chance we have of passing this legislation through the House of Representatives and Senate and getting the President's signature on it to make it law!

This is a historic time in Washington, DC and you can be part of increasing STEM engagement throughout the United States. For additional information on the conference, along with registration information, please visit: http://www.teamrush27.net/nac. The registration deadline is Thursday, May 14th.

ryanmathewson

08-05-2015, 12:51

One of the first times I was inspired by robots was (through the semi inappropriate show) Battlebots. Having that national TV time was huge.

Since inspiration is such a huge factor in FIRST, I would love to see at least the 2 Championships (or 1 for 2016) get some TV time on a major channel, preferably one available on basic cable or antenna TV. If I remember correctly, I read some of the late 90's competitions were shown on ESPN. Getting on the airwaves of basic television could inspire kids in places and in socioeconomic levels that we were never able to reach before. With the availability of at least a computer or two at nearly every school in the nation, having something on TV that is so incredibly cool and inspiring will drive kids to jump on that one computer and do research. Next thing you know, you have a plot similar to the Spare Parts movie that came out this year.

This year in St. Louis was my first year at Championship, as well as my team's first. I wish I was still young enough to be on the team when we made it, but I was incredibly proud seeing them even make it that far, and finishing middle of the pack.

At championship, I had the fortune of doing many things: Volunteering on field repair/reset for Galileo and interacting with those teams every match on Thursday, Exhibiting for an international Engineering fraternity and sorority (Sigma Phi Delta and Alpha Omega Epsilon), and being a mentor for a team that made it that far. When I walked in to the dome on Tuesday during field set-up, I couldn't contain my excitement: We had made it. And over the next two days as teams showed up, It went from real to extremely real. I could see in the eyes of everyone I talked to, no matter which of the 3 things I was doing, that they were extremely excited to be there and inspired by such a huge event.

If inspiration is really what FIRST is about, the split is great. The only difference I think should be changed, is we should have one winning alliance. This would maintain one of the few competition aspects that people complain about losing due to two championships. Maybe that requires FIRST paying for the 8 "Einstein" alliances to gain free travel to the second championship to compete there in an extra large Einstein bracket. Maybe it's just the winning alliance of the first championship comes to the second to face the winner of that championship to crown the ultimate victor. I don't know. But as long as we distinguish championships apart, say "north" and "south" as previously suggested, I would be fine with two winning alliances as long as the inspiration is the main goal.

Since I graduated, I've always loved the quote, "Inspire a Generation." It's the reason I am as active as possible in FIRST even with college. The inspiration I got from FIRST, mentors, coaches, and everything I learned through FIRST are the reasons I landed a NASA internship this summer as a rising college junior at the University of Missouri. We need to keep that going, for the sake of the future generations. Even as a college sophomore, white middle-class male, average GPA, Mechanical Engineering major, not at a highly envied engineering school, about as average and non diverse as you get, I thought I could get an internship because you all made me believe I could. And after 8 months, 35 companies, almost 100 position applications, only 2 interviews, many rejection emails, and a last minute phone call, I get to work for my dream company. And if you all can inspire me, you can inspire anyone else to do the same thing, to push their goals and keep pushing to achieve them.

Pay it forward and keep inspiring, FIRST.

Citrus Dad

08-05-2015, 16:51

Thank you Eric for starting the more fundamental discussion about the how does FIRST best achieve its goals through the FRC program. The history is very helpful for context. At the heart of this discussion is the question "how important is the competitive structure for FRC to this goal?"

I think some of the conflict over who favors Championsplit depends on which method one believes will spread the FIRST message through the culture: at the grassroots level by increasing individual team size and existing teams adding new teams, or at the higher culture level through various forms of media that inspire creation of new teams and students joining existing teams. Bringing more teams to a large event and increasing the likelihood of competitive success for a team fits with the first belief; creating a more competitive event that might attract more public attention fits with the latter. These two ideas need not conflict, but there are trade offs. I've seen success of both types, but from my professional experience I've seen that the most rapid social changes have been top down simply because adoption can spring from multiple sources simultaneously, not just one or a few.

To start the discussion of my rationale, I'm adding my own understanding of the FIRST origin story. I've seen Kamen say twice (once in "The New Cool" and again in "Slingshot") that he came up with the idea of creating a program based on a sporting metaphor when he was in a science museum store and the kids were much more excited about sports team gear than science gizmos. I think this has been a brilliant idea. The program's success speaks for itself.

To what extent is the fascination with due to be engaged with the sporting activity, i.e., playing, and how much with the success of the team, i.e., being a fan? Of course there is cross over between these two, but I believe the excitement that Kamen witnessed was more of the latter. I played touch football as a kid, but I continue to be a college football fan and attend games time to time. The Super Bowl is the most watched event each year and very few watching have ever played serious football. And fans are most interested in following winning teams, even championship teams. Except for the Cubs, the most notable teams are those that rack up championships. Dallas became "America's Team" because of they continually challenged for and won the Super Bowl. The Yankees from the 1920s to 1950s were the most popular team in US, and the winningest. On this basis I believe the popularity of sports teams is highly correlated with competitive success tied to winning championships.

I believe the goal of FIRST is cultural engineering to bring recognition of STEM
in the same manner as sports (and entertainment) icons. FIRST is trying to reach beyond the "usual suspects" of students to recruit into STEM using this strategy. Much more of the student population is engaged passionately in sports (or even video games). Attracting students to FIRST programs is one important step, but if students joined other STEM programs after watching an FRC competition, that would be an equal success. So to achieve that goal, FIRST must promote FRC in a way that attracts the attention of a broader segment of the population.

In large part promoting FRC requires more than just creating a competition; it also means developing a strong marketing message to promote that competition. A simple "field of dreams" vision of "if we build it they will come" is not realistic. (This reminds me of the attitude toward the economic transformation in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Many said "markets will just happen" but that wasn't the case--creating functional markets requires lots of institutional groundwork.) There a number of things the FIRST still needs to better develop its "retail" product for wider consumption, some of which I've posted in the Einstein experience thread. But I believe delivering a better retail product hinges on a key principle: that the competition arrive at a single identifiable champion in a competition in front of the largest possible audience. Television wants 20,000 people in the stands, not what can fit in a high school gym. And they also want to be able to easily tell a story, including low production costs for following a story--that means competition at a single venue. That is the single best way to generate the buzz needed to spread the message through our culture.

Note where there are multiple championships, e.g., state high school sports, there are classification differences, e.g., larger vs small school divisions. No sport immediately comes to mind where there are true "dual" or "multiple" championships for equally qualified participants. The closest counterexample I can think of is NCAA Division 1A football that had multiple bowl games and the year end champion was voted on in polls. (Bowl games didn't even count in the polls until the 1950s.) But even that effectively came to an end in 1998 with the BCS and was even further unified this year. The only other one might be the boxing/ultimate fighting federations that have rival championships, but even those have their biggest events when they unify these championships.

With the objective of a unified championship, a number of ideas have been proposed as an alternative to the SW/NE geographic championsplit that FIRST has implicitly offered so far.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=137096
These all meet the general objective of 800 teams at two events, but they don't all reduce travel costs, but some do almost as well as FIRST's proposal. Here's a brief summary of what has been proposed:

1) Two-tiered championships, with the first 400 and second 400 teams based on one of the following 3 criteria:
- Using the status quo system with all finalists qualifying plus additional metrics
- Using quasi-district points to rank teams
- Using previous championship or season rankings to determine event eligibility
2) Two tiered championship in which the first and second 100 teams are ranked by district points and assigned to separate events; the other 300 are assigned geographically and qualified in the manner that FIRST is proposing for championsplit. (This probably best meets the travel cost goal.)
3) Ending the first event at the division titles and bring those winners to the second event to play on the Einstein field.
4) World Champs/World Festival in which the former is competitive and the latter open to a wider set of teams.
5) Create two types of qualifying, the first based on on-field competition success ("Recognition") and the second on awards success ("Inspiration").

I think anyone of these ideas will work better to raise the profile of FRC in the general public than a dual championship. Last night our team was recognized by our school board for winning the World Championship. It as an easy concept to explain to them. We hadn't gotten the same recognition for winning our division the last two years even though they were probably equivalent to winning a sports section title. And now we've been invited to meet with the state senator representing our town. I doubt we could leverage that kind of access unless we are World Champs (singular). (And we hope we can benefit all California teams in that meeting.)

gblake

08-05-2015, 17:27

Some folks are just sooooo adamant about there being one true path between a starting point at the notions of excellence, inspiration, and recognition; and an ending point of defeating all enemies on the field of competition; that they seem to choose to never seriously entertain that a different approach just might be both successful and appropriate. Or, at the least, an experiment worth completing.

If they are right, they deserve a pat on the back. If they are wrong, history might consign them to the dustbin.

Looking backward (the past is prologue), they seem to be onto something, perhaps even an evolutionary truth.

Looking forward, I hope that viable alternatives do exist, and that evolving cultures will explore and test those alternatives.

Human culture is a complex, multi-faceted interaction between long-term aggregate behaviors and the short lives of individuals, and is so young today that it doesn't really even exist yet on many time scales. For those reasons, I feel that aside from a few statements that are so broad as to be almost meaningless, it is hard to make any if-then claims about culture that aren't complemented by several equally valid contradictions and exceptions.

So, keeping in mind that our current human culture might just be a momentary aberration, and that perspectives that come from our individual experiences are ephemeral and limited; I suggest continuing to de-emphasize habits, in order to find out what happens if STEM organizations like BEST/RECF/FIRST collectively push current culture in the direction Eric emphasizes in his OP.

Maybe we will find out that there actually is more than just one true rut to choose among in our future?

Blake

Alex2614

09-05-2015, 21:26

I was very against the two championships at first. But I'm more okay with it now. We are always talking about how we'd like to see FIRST in every high school. So looking at just FRC now, there are, say 3,000(?) teams. What happens when we have 10,000 teams or more? FIRST wants 20% of teams to experience w big championship event. Out venue capacity is maxed out, there are no venues that can hold our traditional model anymore. Atlanta's starium being torn down and St Louis' in jeopardy.

I'm sorry but having only 0.5% of teams being able to experience the championship isn't very inspiring to me. I couldn't care less about having "one real champion." I want to change peoples' lives.

Siri

10-05-2015, 07:08

I'm sorry but having only 0.5% of teams being able to experience the championship isn't very inspiring to me. I couldn't care less about having "one real champion." I want to change peoples' lives.With only 0.5% of teams attending the current Worlds model, you'd need 60 "championsplits". Predicting that we can preserve the championship experience spilt in half is one thing. 60ths is a super regional experience. Nothing wrong with that, but that's an entirely different FRC that's decades away at least. We currently have no idea what it'd mean to FIRST performance metrics to have that level to advance to without also having Worlds to aim for, and even that's only been discussed abstract. It (0.5%) is an unrealistic dichotomy for today's situation that exaggerates the current issue past it's real cost-benefit discussion. Who knows what the "history of the structure of FIRST" post will like by the time we're facing that balancing act (e.g. is 60 necessary or is 58 okay, because those last two venues are really pushing it?)

BrennanB

10-05-2015, 09:29

I'm sorry but having only 0.5% of teams being able to experience the championship isn't very inspiring to me. I couldn't care less about having "one real champion." I want to change peoples' lives.

Go look at any major sport at the highest level. Basketball, baseball, soccer, football. How many people make it to the NBA, MLB, NFL, etc? Now look at how many people have ever played that specific sport. A few hundred make it to these leagues. A few millions have played the sport. Then tell me that sports haven't influenced/changed people's lives.

Live changing will occur regardless of champion split. The question is, which one does more of it.

In life everyone isn't a winner to the same degree. Not everyone can be a CEO of a large company, not everyone can be a rockstar, not everyone can be a pro athlete. All of these "goals" are extremely rare. Imagine if 20% of all your friends were millionaire CEO's. Imagine if 20% of them expected to be millionaire CEO's.

It's a hard question, and one that society as a whole hasn't really had a competitive field where a massive number of individuals/teams are at the very top of success. I still think it's not the best direction for FIRST. We know small numbers of teams/people at the top is inspirational. Do large numbers of people at the top have the same effect? I feel like it doesn't, but I have no examples because everyone else uses the "small percentage format"

GKrotkov

10-05-2015, 09:41

In life everyone isn't a winner to the same degree. Not everyone can be a CEO of a large company, not everyone can be a rockstar, not everyone can be a pro athlete. All of these "goals" are extremely rare. Imagine if 20% of all your friends were millionaire CEO's. Imagine if 20% of them expected to be millionaire CEO's.

But isn't that a part of what makes FIRST different? We sell ourselves as the "only sport where everyone can go pro" (or something like that, not sure if that's exact). Shouldn't that be an aspect of how we're different from major sports, and one that we celebrate?

BrennanB

10-05-2015, 10:09

But isn't that a part of what makes FIRST different? We sell ourselves as the "only sport where everyone can go pro" (or something like that, not sure if that's exact). Shouldn't that be an aspect of how we're different from major sports, and one that we celebrate?

It is. I was addressing the fact that saying that a program small numbers of "pros" isn't inspiring is false. I'm not sure which model is better in a large scale organisation. We will have to see.

Joe Johnson

10-05-2015, 13:18

First my historical Bonafides. I was baking in the Florida sun, doing the Macarena when it was "the new thing" in the spring of 1996 at the last Nationals (as it was called then) that was hosted actually inside the the gates of EPCOT (on the World Showcase Theater if you must know). I saw Dr. Murphy hand the first Woodie Flowers award trophy to Woodie at the closing ceremonies of that tournament. I was a co-founder of Team 47 and I actually coded (in Perl) some of the early versions of these very fori (still to be seen on the WaybackMachine.org).

I've been doing FIRST a long time and I believe that FIRST has lost its way (or at least is in the process of losing it).

I used to cheer inside when I heard Dean & Co. describe FIRST as "The Olympics of Smarts." (news flash, there are no Coop Points awarded during the Olympics, I'm just sayin'). Yes, Dean talked about FIRST being about much more than competing robots BUT it was ABOUT COMPETING ROBOTS! The Ends was changing the culture but it was understood that the Means was a robot competition.

For good or ill, The Culture we live in is a TV Culture. Back then, FIRST talked often about getting on TV, and not just tangentially, it was front and center. Getting on TV was the "Make it loud" campaign of the day. FIRST paid to produce an ESPN show every year back then, hoping that the following year's FIRST show would be funded by a real TV producer motivated by profit rather than altruism. Beyond the ESPN show, there were continual rumors and hints that this or that TV Superstar was talking about doing this or that movie. It was almost a done deal, they just had a few details to work out, but an announcement about some PrimeTime TV slot with FIRST playing a major role would be coming soon.

Getting on TV was so central that around this time, Dean often discussed the possibility of establishing a FIRST Professional Level. This didn't seem as crazy as you might think. Back then, Robowars, Battlebots, Junkyard Wars and others had TV slots. Why not FIRST Pro?

I believed Dean and the rest of the folks at FIRST when they said that Changing the Culture on the scale that FIRST had it mind required getting on TV.

Over the years, FIRST has backed away from this goal. The formation of Multiple World Championships seems to me to be just the latest in a series of steps FIRST has taken to deny their very heritage. While they seem to have reversed themselves of late, for a time, Dean could often be heard saying that FIRST wasn't even about robots.

This is a huge mistake. Robots Competing is the Goose that Lays the Golden Eggs. Kill competition and you kill FIRST. There are a LOT of things that FIRST has done that are amazing. Almost none of them would have been possible without Robots Competing. Period. End of Story.

Is FIRST still awesome? Yes. After work and sleep, I spend more time volunteering for FIRST than any other activity in my life. I would do that if I didn't think FIRST was still worth doing?

THAT SAID, I can see a day when I stop doing FIRST if they do not right this ship.

I hope Manchester is listening (as Frank often says it is doing) and that they reverse this trend.

Dr. Joe J.

P.S. If FIRST wanted to turn a loss into a win, then they would basically take a page from the District Model's Playbook. Yes, crown a "World Champion" at as many 400 Team "World Championships" as you need to get every team in the world a theoretical chance to make it to "the Worlds" one year in 4. But, define a ranking system that determines a select group from each such tournament to meet at much a smaller venue (~60 teams) to crown the "Solar Champions." If we can't get TV interested in that tournament, then there is no hope for getting FIRST on TV.

John Retkowski

10-05-2015, 15:43

Reserving a spot to make a post until I get home tomorrow and can actually use a computer instead of an iPhone. I've been thinking about the topic of inspiration and competition for a long time now and I need to speak my mind. Even if it's just for my own sanity. :)

Well it seems I can't edit my post for some reason so I'll just make a new reply.

I agree very much with the OP's point of view. However, with all due respect, I find it hard to understand the argument: "It's not about the robots." I believe the robots are a lot more important than many of us realize both in a competitive way and different way.

Let's ask ourselves this,” If it’s not about the robots, what's FIRST about?”
Easy. It's about inspiration.
Next question: What are we trying to inspire?
Another pretty straight forward answer. We're trying to inspire young people (really everybody) to become STEM leaders and show people how much science and technology matter.
One more question. (cmon you guys are smart you can do it)

How do we inspire? By building and competing with robots!
But it's not about the robots. Heh? Why are we trying to inspire people again? Yet the one thing that we might try to convince ourselves isn't important is the example of the same science and technology that we're trying to inspire people with. The robots! This might not be focused around competition, (although I feel that is getting undervalued as well but that will be my second point) but it should be focused on learning about science and technology and how we learn is by building robots. I can only speak for myself, but when I first heard about a robotics team in my area I didn't join because I thought, "Hey, maybe I can work on writing a paper." I wasn't thinking, "I hope they'll have a business plan!" I'm willing to bet that most young people first joined a team for one reason: To build robots. Why they stayed or got inspired by FIRST may be a different reason, but a robotics competition got them in the door giving them a rare opportunity to start on an early path to success in life and realize their dreams. Being on a team, I realize how important Chairman's and a business plan are, but I'm not inspired by them.

I was inspired when I first heard about the concept of a chokehold strategy. I was inspired by seeing so many people put in ridiculous amounts of work to build amazing, beautiful, quality machines. (And I might add that by beauty I don't mean looks) I was inspired when our team won our first district event, and then our second and third. I was inspired when we came back from an 82 point match in the quarterfinals at MAR championships and ended up going all the way to win. I was inspired when I saw 971's arm come out to pick up a tote for the first time. I was and am still inspired by the countless mentors who sacrifice so much to teach these kids. I get inspired when I see teams working together both in the pits and on the field to break limits they never thought they could. I also understand that many people aren't inspired by the same things I am. People get inspired by The Chairman's Award, the business plan, getting sponsors, and many other things. I'm glad people get inspired by these things. They're all extremely important. But the Chairman's Award and the robots aren't as different as they first appear.

They both serve to push the message and ideals of FIRST. They both serve to inspire people about STEM. The Chairman's Award is the highest honor in FIRST. Teams are rewarded for getting out in their communities and not only teaching people about FIRST, but also helping people in general. What I'm trying to get to is this. What would we have if we took the robots and competition out of FIRST? Would we have a glorified woodshop? Would we have a community outreach program? I'm not undermining community outreach. We should be gracious and professional everywhere even outside of FIRST. We should do everything we can to help our fellow man. That's what engineers and all people should do. We should help people everywhere. That brings us back to why we're trying to inspire people: to prove that this stuff matters. Like it or not, the robots are what bring people to FIRST. They're what bring us all together. They're what make us a family .

Now to the competition aspect. Before I even talk about competition in regards to FIRST, let me talk about the most famous form of competition in the world. Sports. Every year, millions and millions of people act crazy over sports (kind of similar to how we do over FRC). Many kids dream of growing up to be pro sports players regardless of the minute chance that they will. Why? Because they are inspired by it. They are inspired by the fierce competition. They are inspired by beating their opponents when no one thought they would. They are inspired by working their butts off, competing, and trying to win. Who wouldn't be? It's human nature to be inspired by these things.
Now bring it back to FRC. Why do we hate competition so much? Why do we say it doesn't matter? We put in so much hard work to sell ourselves short. Competition has become a dirty word, but it's not just about winning. It's about striving to be your best, it's about sportsmanship a.k.a. GP and encouraging your teammates and competitors to pick themselves back up when they lose and to never stop trying to be their best.

This is all just my opinion. I apologize if I'm not even mentioning the championship, but whether we do the right thing or the wrong thing, I don't think the Championship(s) will matter at that point.

Alex2614

10-05-2015, 20:51

Go look at any major sport at the highest level. Basketball, baseball, soccer, football. How many people make it to the NBA, MLB, NFL, etc? Now look at how many people have ever played that specific sport. A few hundred make it to these leagues. A few millions have played the sport. Then tell me that sports haven't influenced/changed people's lives.

Live changing will occur regardless of champion split. The question is, which one does more of it.

In life everyone isn't a winner to the same degree. Not everyone can be a CEO of a large company, not everyone can be a rockstar, not everyone can be a pro athlete. All of these "goals" are extremely rare. Imagine if 20% of all your friends were millionaire CEO's. Imagine if 20% of them expected to be millionaire CEO's.

It's a hard question, and one that society as a whole hasn't really had a competitive field where a massive number of individuals/teams are at the very top of success. I still think it's not the best direction for FIRST. We know small numbers of teams/people at the top is inspirational. Do large numbers of people at the top have the same effect? I feel like it doesn't, but I have no examples because everyone else uses the "small percentage format"

Nobody was complaining about 25% of teams going to the championship in years past. Nobody was shouting "EVERYBODY CANT BE WINNERS! THERE ARE TOO MANY TEAMS HERE!!"

You also have to look at the turnaround on sports vs the team turnaround here. The smaller the percentage of teams going, the more "repeat offenders" you're going to have. While I love watching Einstein, it gets old seeing the exact same teams every year. It's still inspiring to a degree, but it's the same exact teams year after year. Do you really want to see a championship where it's the same 5% of teams every year for 5 years in a row? (Warning. Exaggeration but you get my point).

With only 0.5% of teams attending the current Worlds model, you'd need 60 "championsplits". Predicting that we can preserve the championship experience spilt in half is one thing. 60ths is a super regional experience. Nothing wrong with that, but that's an entirely different FRC that's decades away at least. We currently have no idea what it'd mean to FIRST performance metrics to have that level to advance to without also having Worlds to aim for, and even that's only been discussed abstract. It (0.5%) is an unrealistic dichotomy for today's situation that exaggerates the current issue past it's real cost-benefit discussion. Who knows what the "history of the structure of FIRST" post will like by the time we're facing that balancing act (e.g. is 60 necessary or is 58 okay, because those last two venues are really pushing it?)

We aren't that far away. Look at the growth curve of FRC, FTC, and FLL. It's been almost an exponential growth for a while now, with FTC growing the most rapidly. Many FTC teams I have heard from hate how so few teams can go to champs. They have a much smaller percentage of teams that make it to worlds. FLL is even smaller than that. Many FLL and FTC teams have no hope of ever going. They're not inspired to do better so that they can go, they're discouraged that it is the same teams every year that go, because the championship has not grown at all with their team growth. The number of teams going to worlds is the same as it was many years ago, and there are thousands more teams. I think this is a pilot for a super-regional model anyway. They just don't want to have everyone jump into it feet first. Whether that is the right approach or not, I'm not really sure. But that's probably what they're trying out, if I had to guess.

And going with a "teams should get the opportunity to go every 4 years" won't really work either, when you're talking about the same number of teams I'm thinking about.

We're really not that far away. Our growth is not really on a steady incline last I checked. It's increasing by more every year. And with the legislation going through congress that RUSH and the Advocacy Conference is focused on, we could see even greater growth.

Regardless of all of that, we are still running out of venue space that can handle these big events. St. Louis is over capacity right now. I imagine Deteoit and Houston will be at capacity too. So we might see championship events that are actually smaller than we are used to in the future. 600 teams at a championship is too many, imo. 8 fields is too many for one event. We all just get lost in the shuffle pretty much. Judging is a nightmare. The way the venue flows is a nightmare.

No, not everybody can be winners. But nobody is really advocating that, are we? That's the very definition of a straw man argument. We're not giving everybody a world championship winners trophy. Just giving more people the experience. But the same percentage of teams the championship experience as we had before.

Gregor

10-05-2015, 21:05

Many FLL and FTC teams have no hope of ever going. They're not inspired to do better so that they can go, they're discouraged that it is the same teams every year that go, because the championship has not grown at all with their team growth.

Not true at all. My FLL team has never made it to the World Festival, but they've been close a few times. St. Louis has been a stated goal for them every year. They've not been less inspired when they didn't have a chance. They didn't try less hard when Ontario wasn't even given a qualifying spot at all for the World Festival. Competitive FLL teams don't compete to win the World Festival, they compete to do the best they can, and it's fun.

Making generalizations to try and prove your point weakens your argument.

Alex2614

10-05-2015, 21:13

Not true at all. My FLL team has never made it to the World Festival, but they've been close a few times. St. Louis has been a stated goal for them every year. They've not been less inspired when they didn't have a chance. They didn't try less hard when Ontario wasn't even given a qualifying spot at all for the World Festival. Competitive FLL teams don't compete to win the World Festival, they compete to do the best they can, and it's fun.

Making generalizations to try and prove your point weakens your argument.

First of all, I meant to say that many teams I'VE personally talked to and heard from. Not just your team. I didn't say al teams. I apologize for that omission. But comparing the behavior of all teams based solely on your team's example is a generalization, isn't it? Plus, it is possible to be inspired by these teams that make it to champs every year, AND be discouraged at the same time.

But you just proved my point anyway. Competitive teams don't compete to win the world championship. They compete to do the best they can, and it's fun. Therefore, how many teams get to go to the championship shouldn't matter in that aspect, should it? Would it water down the competition if suddenly they invited more teams to the world festival? Or have several national events? Oh wait, they do actually have several national "open national championships" in FLL. And it's no less inspiring. In fact, it's MORE inspiring, because more teams can have these "national event" experiences.

Joe Johnson

10-05-2015, 21:15

Nobody was complaining about 25% of teams going to the championship in years past. Nobody was shouting "EVERYBODY CANT BE WINNERS! THERE ARE TOO MANY TEAMS HERE!!"

<snip>

This is not true. There has been a large group of people, not the majority by any stretch but not one or two odd balls out in left field, that have said for years now that the World Championships are in fact, too big. The entire Division Structure of the Worlds came up as a response to many of people saying, "there are just too many teams for one competition." The largeness of the Worlds is awesome. But I do think that it can get too big.

If I had my way, I would ask the question this way: How many teams should attend the World Championships such that it maximizes FIRST's chances of getting the event picked up as a Prime Time show on TV? I think by this standard, even 400 teams is higher than optimum.

Read my rant above, but I still believe that the fastest way for FIRST to make the cultural change that it seeks is to get the World Championships on TV.

Dr. Joe J.

Alex2614

10-05-2015, 21:21

This is not true. There have been a large group of people, not the majority by any stretch but not one or two odd balls out in left field, that have said that the World Championships are in fact, too big. The entire Division Structure of the Worlds came up as a response to many of people saying, "there are just too many teams for one competition." The largeness of the Worlds is awesome. But I do think that it can get too big.

If I had my way, I would ask the question this way: How many teams should attend the World Championships such that it maximizes FIRST's chances of getting the event picked up as a Prime Time show on TV? I think by this standard, even 400 teams is higher than optimum.

Read my rant above, but I still believe that the fastest way for FIRST to make the cultural change that it seeks is to get the World Championships on TV.

Dr. Joe J.

Don said in St. Louis they they are looking into holding a small event where the winners of the two championships compete together. Now THAT is an event that could be televised. And then everyone that is complaining about having one world champion can be happy.

But for me, I personally don't really care about that, and neither do our sponsors. Our sponsors care that we attended championship. And if more teams can go back to their sponsors and say that they went to a world-level event, how can that be a bad thing? They won't care that there were 2 world level events. They won't care about how many teams were there.

Navid Shafa

10-05-2015, 21:30

Nobody was complaining about 25% of teams going to the championship in years past. Nobody was shouting "EVERYBODY CANT BE WINNERS! THERE ARE TOO MANY TEAMS HERE!!"

If it wasn't currently an issue, or expected to become an issue, would people have a reason to shout about it?

*I'm not trying to rag on the percentage right now. I could certainly come to terms with everything that comes with an expanded Championship, especially if it was under one roof...

Alex2614

10-05-2015, 21:40

If it wasn't currently an issue, or expected to become an issue, would people have a reason to shout about it?

*I'm not trying to rag on the percentage right now. I could certainly come to terms with everything that comes with an expanded Championship, especially if it was under one roof...

Exactly. But it's an issue now, for some reason. We can't have it all under one roof. There just isn't a venue out there that can do this with the needed hotel capacity.

If the championship was able to be under one roof, and have 25% of teams, most people would be okay with it. But if it's 2 championships, they suddenly have a problem with 25%.

But I'm not in FRC for the hype or for the championship. I just want my kids to be able to experience the championship and have a good time seeing amazing things. And I want as many people as possible to experience that (which btw St. Louis is terrible for, I'm glad we're moving). And if that means we go to 2 championships, okay. I guess my priorities are different than most people on here.

iVanDuzer

10-05-2015, 22:23

Don said in St. Louis they they are looking into holding a small event where the winners of the two championships compete together. Now THAT is an event that could be televised. And then everyone that is complaining about having one world champion can be happy.

Yes, it could be televised, but then you have additional costs, to teams and to FIRST. You need to find another venue. Students need to take more time off of their jobs or school. Mentors need to use more vacation days. It just doesn't make sense at all. If FIRST decides to cover the entire cost of the special weekend event, that's a HUGE expense for them to cover. I would much rather FIRST spend that money on other things.

Plus, when we get to the point of 60 Championsplit events, how are we going to decide which alliances go to that premier event? Separating Einstein (or whatever the Field of Champions is called) from the Championsplit events is just as unsustainable as the current model.

But for me, I personally don't really care about that, and neither do our sponsors. Our sponsors care that we attended championship. And if more teams can go back to their sponsors and say that they went to a world-level event, how can that be a bad thing? They won't care that there were 2 world level events. They won't care about how many teams were there.

Except when we get up to 60 Championsplit events, they wouldn't be world-level, because there wouldn't be any international teams. With your projected growth, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Mexico, Israel, Australia would all have their own Championsplit events. Even if you lived right across the border in Windsor, you would still probably go to the Ontario event, not the Detroit one.

There's an undeniable prestige that comes along with attending the Championship, and with each additional Championsplit event, that prestige is decreased. This is a known phenomenon in art, where the more available something is, the less "special" the reproduced or original piece of art is (ask anyone who has seen the actual Mona Lisa, and they'll probably say "it's smaller than I thought it would be." Not "It's amazing," not "it was just like I imagined it." Just disappointment because of oversaturation). The paper is called "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduct ion) and it's a great read (PDF here (http://www.berk-edu.com/VisualStudies/readingList/06b_benjamin-work%20of%20art%20in%20the%20age%20of%20mechanical %20reproduction.pdf) - but fair warning, it's fairly jargon-y)

You really do have to ask yourself the question "why is the Championship a special event?" Because if it's the prestige of the event, the Championsplit wrecks that. If it's the ability to talk to teams from very different places, the Championsplit wrecks that. If it's the need to crown a single champion, the Championsplit wrecks that. What do you want a Championship to be?

Chris is me

10-05-2015, 22:57

This is kind of an aside, but something I haven't seen mentioned is, where is FIRST getting the idea that every team both wants to go and can go to the Championship every four years? They keep pointing out that making champs bigger means 25% of teams get to go, which means everyone gets to go every four years. But that's ridiculous. I think it's fair to say at least half of the teams at Champs had been there in the past 3 Championships. If 25% just happens to allow everyone who wants to go every four years to go, that's one thing, but that's not how the argument is being presented and they haven't shown us data to support that.

I'm really curious how much demand there is for the Championship. The length of the waitlist is one way to tell, I guess, but being on the waitlist and desiring to go to Champs off of it are two different things. Some use it as a hedge, if they have a good season but don't qualify, then get a waitlist invite, they go, otherwise they don't.

I get FIRST's position here - the championship inspired me as a student, and not really just because I was playing for the championship, but because of the overall experience. I just think they vastly underestimate how much of that experience they'll lose by cutting out half of it from each one. It's not two championships; it's two halves of what was one championship (plus 100 extra teams each, true)

Alex2614

10-05-2015, 23:05

When did I ever advocate for 60 championsplits? I guess you and I have very differing values on what FIRST is about. If it means more people can experience the championship experience, and change even more lives (and not just the same teams every year), then I'm willing to sacrifice some things. People will still be just as impacted at these two events as at one. The events will still be huge and inspiring. There is nothing sustainable about not growing certain aspects of your program as your program grows. What if we put a cap on the number of teams that can exist? Or better yet, if a team never grows to meet demand because they still want the same numbers they had before? Teams themselves split up all the time for this very reason. If they can't grow one team, they'll have two, so they can meet demand. What if these teams never did this, because they wanted just one? So they deny more and more students every year because they're unable to grow? Bottom line is, to remain sustainable and viable, aspects of the program need to grow along with the organization.

When there were 25% of teams going to one championship event, it wasn't seen (by most) as not prestigious. Now you tell your sponsors 25% of teams make it to the championship events. They'll still see top 25%. 8 alliances on Einstein or 16 alliances on Einstein when you're talking about the thousands of teams in existence won't make any difference to your sponsors. 3 winners vs 6 winners.

"You need to find another venue." Well there aren't any, I'm sorry to break that news to you. And like I said earlier, the smaller the percentage is, the more it will just be the same teams over and over again, and I don't want that either. I want some "wiggle room" for other teams to experience it too. You're going to end up with the same 400 or so powerhouses every year, and that sends another additional message of "unobtainabity" to the students.

Someone made this analogy to me earlier and to really stuck to me. He and I are both really involved in the Boy Scouts, and both Eagle Scouts. Has the value of the Eagle Scout diminished in value at all? No, but there are way more people earning it now than 30 years ago. Why? Because the program grew, and thus the number of Eagles grew. Still a similar percentage of scouts make it to Eagle as 30 or 40 years ago, but thousands more will earn it in 2015 than in 1950. The "prestige" is still there. How different would scouting be if they gave out the same number of Eagle awards now that they did in 1920? Not as many scouts would even try for it because it is virtually unobtainable.

Scouting only has a big national event every 4 years. In the meantime, we do things on a more regional level. There are some really really big inspiring "regional" events out there, too. And there are other events at which we can meet scouts from all over. I think in the future of FIRST, we will see more smaller events like IRI that are open to everyone, and we will get to meet people there. Or maybe every couple years we hold a big "jamboree-style event" just for fun for the "meet people from all over" experience. And the workshops, conferences, training, etc can happen there.

I'm just going to have to agree to disagree here. I can see that none of you are going to budge. I was very upset at the championsplit at first too. But at the end of the day, FIRST is still going to impact and change lives and change culture. And we are going to face these 2 championships anyway, whether you like it or not. I think most will find that it will be okay, because the students on their team are still just as impacted, and they are just as inspired. And THATS what matters for me. Our kids' experience at these events is what is on my mind. And if I can make one more kid smile, one more kid have this life-changing championship experience, I'm going to do that. And this model helps us all bring that to thousands more kids. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but to me, that is all that matters.

Joe Johnson

10-05-2015, 23:12

<snip>

Except when we get up to 60 Championsplit events, they wouldn't be world-level, because there wouldn't be any international teams. With your projected growth, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Mexico, Israel, Australia would all have their own Championsplit events. Even if you lived right across the border in Windsor, you would still probably go to the Ontario event, not the Detroit one.

<snip>

You really do have to ask yourself the question "why is the Championship a special event?" Because if it's the prestige of the event, the Championsplit wrecks that. If it's the ability to talk to teams from very different places, the Championsplit wrecks that. If it's the need to crown a single champion, the Championsplit wrecks that. What do you want a Championship to be?

This is it exactly.

As things are now, I can hit up my sponsors because I QUALIFIED for the WORLDS. What kind of a heartless sponsor would say no to that?

If, instead, I went the my sponsors and said, "It's my TURN to go to ONE of a NUMBER of world class events." I am not sure that my sponsors would be as forthcoming to such an appeal.

Dr. Joe J.

Alex2614

10-05-2015, 23:15

This is it exactly.

As things are now, I can hit up my sponsors because I QUALIFIED for the WORLDS. What kind of a heartless sponsor would say no to that?

If, instead, I went the my sponsors and said, "It's my TURN to go to ONE of a NUMBER of world class events." I am not sure that my sponsors would be as forthcoming to such an appeal.

Dr. Joe J.

It's about the percentage, not the number of events. You say only 25% of teams get to go to one of the two events. Just like in previous years when 25% of teams got to go to one championship. You still say "only 25% of teams made it this year, and we were one of them."

It's still just as marketable as it was before. Saying that we're going to get to 60 world championships is a straw man, and really weakens his argument.

EricH

10-05-2015, 23:21

However, with all due respect, I find it hard to understand the argument: "It's not about the robots." I believe the robots are a lot more important than many of us realize both in a competitive way and different way.

Let's ask ourselves this,” If it’s not about the robots, what's FIRST about?”
Easy. It's about inspiration.
Next question: What are we trying to inspire?
Another pretty straight forward answer. We're trying to inspire young people (really everybody) to become STEM leaders and show people how much science and technology matter.
One more question. (cmon you guys are smart you can do it)

How do we inspire? By building and competing with robots!
But it's not about the robots. [...] I can only speak for myself, but when I first heard about a robotics team in my area I didn't join because I thought, "Hey, maybe I can work on writing a paper." I wasn't thinking, "I hope they'll have a business plan!" I'm willing to bet that most young people first joined a team for one reason: To build robots.

You've gone fishing, right? Let's take a look at a typical fishing trip from the perspective of a fish. (Trust me, I'm going somewhere with this.)

"Oh, hey, that looks (or smells) tasty. I think I'll take a look and see if it actually is good." *nibble* "Eh, not bad. But I'll pass for now--wait, it's leaving!" (This is the one where the fisherman thinks the nibble is the real bite.)

"Oh, hey, that looks (or smells) tasty. I think I'll take a look and see if it actually is good." *nibble* "YUM!" *bites the whole thing* "Hey, OW, WAIT, STOP, I don't like this! Wait, there's a new world out here I can just barely see OW!" (Doesn't end well for the fish, so I'll stop there.)

"That" is the bait, wrapped around the hook--which is, of course, reeled in. Did I mention that I was going somewhere with this? First, let's see if you can figure out this one: who's saying it, and what is "that"?

"Hey, that looks interesting. I'll take a look and see what's up." *a few months--or years--later* "WOW. That was intense. There's so much to learn and see out in the STEM fields." (or... "Meh, not my cup of tea.")

Give up? Of course, it's a new student joining a robotics team because of the robot! (The other one is a student deciding that he/she isn't interested.)

By this time, if you've made it this far, you're asking "what's his point?" My point is this: It's not about the robots, because the robots are the bait, hook, line and sinker. We're the fishermen trying to catch the students to inspire, and we're using a robot to do it. For the students, yep, it's all about the robot: for those that see the bigger picture (including the students who've been around a while), the robot is just a vehicle. To go back to fishing for a moment, you could also: use a big net (trawling), "tickle" a fish (AKA barehanded grabs), or spear a fish (or other ways).

This is all about the robots because it is NOT all about the robots. For better or worse, FIRST has chosen to use robotics competitions as their primary vehicle of achieving their goals. They've put a lot into those competitions. After the first year, they could have backed off, gone to another idea... but they stayed with it. Now... there's no way out, for them. It has to be about the robots... because otherwise, how are they going to reach kids? It has to not be about the robots... because their purpose is not to find the best robot for X but to inspire and recognize.

It's a vicious cycle, and it's difficult to explain. I hope I've been clear enough, but if I go further I'll be having a circular argument with myself on how it is/is not about the robots because it is not/is about the robots and all that.

Which leads us back towards the original question, which I'll expand slightly:
Is there a way to still crown a single World Champion Alliance, while still maintaining the Inspiration and the Recognition of a single Championship event, in two (or more) ChampionSplit events? As a side item, is it possible to also get 25% or so of FRC teams TO the Championship?

My answer to my own challenge... let's just say I cheat in mine, and look a lot longer than the two years we have to come up with a good one. I don't look at 2017. I'm looking at 2021 and beyond. I'm also looking at all the areas that aren't districts.

My answer is simple: We've got 5 years to get as much of FRC as possible into a district system. THEN we can go to FIRST and say, "You know that SuperRegional model you had like 10 years ago? You wanna break that out again, and reformat the DCMPs and ChampionSplits into SuperRegionals, and give us one World Championship again? Oh, and while you're at it, can we get some of the Championship items like conferences and a Hall of Fame to the SuperRegionals?"

In my opinion, that's the only way we can accomplish all of the items above. It's going to take time--time we have, and don't have. It's going to take volunteers we need to recruit, take venues we need to find, take teams that don't exist yet that need to be started. It's not an easy solution, but difficult problems often demand difficult solutions.

waialua359

10-05-2015, 23:32

This is a huge mistake. Robots Competing is the Goose that Lays the Golden Eggs. Kill competition and you kill FIRST. There are a LOT of things that FIRST has done that are amazing. Almost none of them would have been possible without Robots Competing. Period. End of Story.

Dr. Joe,
I believe ultimately, this is true. As an educator for 21 years. and prior to that as a former student involved in other STEM-related competitions, I used to be involved with other programs and competitions that students were heavily inspired by. I did ISEF for many years and competed in Electric Vehicle racing both during and prior to FIRST and VEX.
If ultimately down the road, FRC became just another "exhibition," I believe it would lose students to other competing STEM programs. So why does that matter?
ISEF and other STEM programs will never be a game changer to changing the culture of how people view STEM with respect to Sports.
FRC can by continuing to do what it has done all these years.

Whether it be 1 or 2 or maybe more championships down the line, keeping that vision of a competition model is essential to maintaining that momentum it has, even when we started back when there were only 359 teams.:)

Navid Shafa

11-05-2015, 00:06

iVanDuzer

11-05-2015, 00:23

When did I ever advocate for 60 championsplits?

Numbers taken from your earlier post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1481268&postcount=15) where you listed off 10,000 teams as the future size for FRC (personally, I don't think it will get that big, because many teams are folding and eventually communities won't be able to support the tens of thousands of dollars most single FRC teams need. But I digress.) and then Siri pointing out (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1481289&postcount=16) you'd need 60 Championsplit events for that number. I'm not entirely sure where Siri got that number (if there are 10,000 FRC teams, and 25% of teams attend Championship events, and each event fits 400 teams, then shouldn't it be 7 Championsplits?) but other people were using that number so I ran with it. Mea culpa.

But let's not look super far into the future - let's picture a world where FRC has grown to the point where we need, let's say, five Championsplits.

I guess you and I have very differing values on what FIRST is about. If it means more people can experience the championship experience, and change even more lives, then I'm willing to sacrifice some things. People will still be just as impacted at these two events as at one. The events will still be huge and inspiring.

I'm guessing you didn't read the Wikipedia page on the paper I posted. I'll relink you: Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduct ion). Now, its relevancy is up to debate, but the thesis is pretty simple: the more of something there is, the less of an impact there will be. This is why particular sports events are so important (and also why World Jamborees are such special events; sidenote, I have 13 years of Boy Scout experience, from Beavers to Ventures, and while I didn't get my Chief Scout, I like to think I know that program as well). Olympic Gold is so crucial to many athletes because they only get to compete for it every four years. The exclusivity is what makes the event special! Also, if you read on, I'll go into depth as to why these events won't be as huge as we're used to.

I'm basically arguing that the Championship experience will change, period. The general argument is that the Championsplit will either increase inspiration because more teams will experience the event, or will decrease inspiration, because part of the Championship experience is being with all the top and international teams, half of which would be missing at a Championsplit event. It's obvious which sides of the fence each of us are on, but it'd be nice if we try to take the other side into account. Neither of us has enough FIRST experience or have talked to enough FIRSTers to get an accurate idea of what the majority of teams value, so let's not put words into each others' mouths. Instead, let's look at other, more arguable and concrete reasons why the Championsplit model is good or bad.

There is nothing sustainable about not growing certain aspects of your program as your program grows.

A Post-Championsplit event where the event winners face off was not in FIRST's original plan, and so it doesn't suit the sustainability of the Championsplit model. As more and more Championsplit events are added, the number of alliances that will want to play at that Winners' Event will increase. Soon, there will be the need for round-robin play before eliminations, if there aren't 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 teams attending. Otherwise, how do you decide who gets bye's? Better yet, how do you decide who faces who? Scheduling becomes longer, and suddenly this event, which FIRST has said that they are looking to pay for in its entirety, becomes more and more expensive.

For example, League of Legends just had their Mid-Season Invitational, where they took the Spring Champions of their six leagues from around the world and played them off of each other. Their six-team tournament lasted four days. There are some obvious differences here (LoL games last longer than FRC matches by quite a bit, and they waited a day between the semis and final matches), but it just goes to show that the time that these events need to be run properly balloons.

What if we put a cap on the number of teams that can exist? Or better yet, if a team never grows to meet demand because they still want the same numbers they had before? Teams themselves split up all the time for this very reason. If they can't grow one team, they'll have two, so they can meet demand. What if these teams never did this, because they wanted just one? So they deny more and more students every year because they're unable to grow? Bottom line is, to remain sustainable and viable, aspects of the program need to grow along with the organization.

I honestly don't understand this point, because I never once (nor did anyone in this thread) say that FRC should stop growing. And, for the record, my idea for a Post-2016 Post-Season Model does account for team growth (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1479643#post1479643) (and so do many others in that thread which advocate for a single-Championship model).

When there were 25% of teams going to one championship event, it wasn't seen (by most) as not prestigious. Now you tell your sponsors 25% of teams make it to the championship events. They'll still see top 25%. 8 alliances on Einstein or 16 alliances on Einstein when you're talking about the thousands of teams in existence won't make any difference to your sponsors. 3 winners vs 6 winners.

This is a fair point.

"You need to find another venue." Well there aren't any, I'm sorry to break that news to you.

Which is exactly why the Championsplit model as presented by FIRST is unsustainable once we get above four Championsplit events. There are currently only four cities FIRST thinks has the facilities and location to fit a 400 team event: Atlanta, St. Louis, Houston, and Detroit (with the last one including lots of travelling between buildings). We were told at the Town Hall that venues further west "didn't work out." Where does the fifth Championsplit go? If FIRST wants to keep with their 25% number, we will need a fifth Championsplit event when we hit 8000 teams.

Again, my proposed model (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1479643#post1479643) calls for local, Super-Regional (or "Challenger Championships", as they've been popularly called) events capped at 200 teams, which makes finding local facilities much easier.

And like I said earlier, the smaller the percentage is, the more it will just be the same teams over and over again, and I don't want that either. I want some "wiggle room" for other teams to experience it too. You're going to end up with the same 400 or so powerhouses every year, and that sends another additional message of "unobtainabity" to the students.

Two words: team turnover. The very very top teams are sure to stick around, but they've been sticking around for years. Teams go through noticeable dynasties, rising and falling with a core group of students. Top teams use mentorship and superior training to stay on top, but the majority of teams lose a lot of talent when their top members graduate. For example, the final six teams on Einstein in 2011 were 254, 111, 973, 177, 2016, and 781. Of those six teams, only 254 is still a perennial powerhouse. The other five teams have dropped off, although they are still mid to upper-middle of the pack teams (speaking in regards to on-field success). Go back even farther, and you get a whole other crop of dominating teams.

And there will always be the teams that have breakthrough years and build robots that do much better than the team's history would suggest. 1325, two-time regional finalist and Carson Alliance Captains / Champions, for example.

When you are talking about the true "powerhouse teams" of FIRST, the teams that can be expected to make a huge splash and contend for the Championship Title year after year after year, you get a list of 25 - 50 teams. And that's stretching it. That's a far, far cry from filling a 400 team event. There will always be "wriggle room" for new teams to make it in.

Someone made this analogy to me earlier and to really stuck to me. He and I are both really involved in the Boy Scouts, and both Eagle Scouts. Has the value of the Eagle Scout diminished in value at all? No, but there are way more people earning it now than 30 years ago. Why? Because the program grew, and thus the number of Eagles grew. Still a similar percentage of scouts make it to Eagle as 30 or 40 years ago, but thousands more will earn it in 2015 than in 1950. The "prestige" is still there. How different would scouting be if they gave out the same number of Eagle awards now that they did in 1920? Not as many scouts would even try for it because it is virtually unobtainable.

I would argue that this is a false comparison, as the nature of the Chief Scout is one of personal growth, whereas a Championship should be about competition. The nature of the achievement is completely different. Unless you see the Championship event as a badge to earn, as opposed to being modeled off of sports, which was the whole point of FIRST to begin with (see Dr. Joe's fantastic post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1481316&postcount=20) about how competition has been the backbone of FRC since day one).

Scouting only has a big national event every 4 years. In the meantime, we do things on a more regional level. And there are other events at which we can meet scouts from all over. I think in the future of FIRST, we will see more smaller events like IRI that are open to everyone, and we will get to meet people there. Or maybe every couple years we hold a big "jamboree-style event" just for fun for the "meet people from all over" experience. And the workshops, conferences, training, etc can happen there.

Would FIRST run these events? If FIRST doesn't organize these Jamborees, then teams won't go. And if there isn't a competitive incentive, then the top teams won't go, and there goes a huge chunk of your inspiration.

Especially if you consider the cost of attending these events. How many teams are going to dish out $10,000 on registration and travel to attend an event where teams basically get to talk to each other. The cost/benefit issue will keep the majority of FRC teams (who can't even afford a second regional, by the way) out of the Jamboree entirely.

And then there's the size of the Jamboree to consider. Again, having a large event is limited by the facilities available. So we're basically capped at a 600 team event, which means a lower percentage of teams get to experience an international event as FIRST grows. Which is the problem we're having right now.

jweston

11-05-2015, 00:40

This is one those growing pains that FIRST is inevitably going to go through if it is successful in its mission to expand. It's not practical to maintain what is effectively 8-10+ district-championship-sized fields in one location. As FRC continues to grow, it becomes incredibly difficult to coordinate the logistics, not to mention ensuring safety, due to the number of people gathering in one place. There will not be a satisfactory solution if people want to keep everything about World Championship as it currently stands.

The next best solution I can think of is to create some sort of intermediate global regional championship level between district and world. That has its own problems with costs, lengthening the calendar, and requiring even more time from students during a school year. Pretty much anything that allows for growth is going to involve trade-offs. I have a hunch that these ChampionSplits may become that if FIRST finds it desirable to have a single Einstein field.

From a more personal perspective on what World Championships is about, this was the first year our team made it to World Championship since 2010. This means none of our current students have been there. One of the things our team loved most about going to World was the opportunity to meet in person teams from all over the planet. And not just the legendary teams but teams from places like the West Coast, Canada, Mexico, and Israel; teams we'd never, ever get to meet in New England. The students really connected because they all loved FRC and everything that goes into it, but they also got to share a little bit of their respective culture with each other.

Another big highlight were the workshops given by some of the most experienced and talented teams around. They are still talking about Karthik's strategy workshop. OTOH, our students certainly weren't able to meet every team at World. One of the downsides of it being so big.

Was our team excited to play in Hopper and watch Einstein in person? Of course! But the point is that the overall experience of being at World was a lot bigger than that. It wasn't about figuring out which alliance was the best but which teams were the ones to watch this year.

The ChampionSplit won't necessarily mean that the teams in any given ChampionSplit will be any less diverse or legendary (at least I hope not), but it will mean that attending World won't guarantee that you'll have the chance to meet specific people also attending World. But then, with so many attending now, that might already be true. It also might mean that certain teams that we're accustomed to seeing in the Einstein finals may not be together on the same field. But this might also be good since it widens the spotlight a little to other fantastic teams.

I understand the desire to have a single grand champion alliance. I appreciate how that plays into the marketability of FIRST to the general public and to sponsors. I understand how satisfying it is to have that goal as to be on _the_ Einstein winning alliance. But given the continued expansion, there is a necessity to either limit the number of teams to a much smaller percentage than 25% or to split World. For now, it's probably better for FIRST to focus on making World managable and accessible to teams. Once they find a method that works with the current growth, they can focus on something that sells.

Anyway, that's my two cents from a first year mentor's perspective, never having been involved with FIRST before.

P.S. I don't understand the rationale of making it cheaper to travel. That may be true for teams in the center of the US, but there are a whole lot of teams that doesn't cover. It will definitely become more expensive for our team... not that I'm complaining if we make it to World again.

Siri

11-05-2015, 08:10

Numbers taken from your earlier post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1481268&postcount=15) where you listed off 10,000 teams as the future size for FRC (personally, I don't think it will get that big, because many teams are folding and eventually communities won't be able to support the tens of thousands of dollars most single FRC teams need. But I digress.) and then Siri pointing out (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1481289&postcount=16) you'd need 60 Championsplit events for that number. I'm not entirely sure where Siri got that number (if there are 10,000 FRC teams, and 25% of teams attend Championship events, and each event fits 400 teams, then shouldn't it be 7 Championsplits?) but other people were using that number so I ran with it. Mea culpa.I explain the math in my own post (emphasis mine):
I'm sorry but having only 0.5% of teams being able to experience the championship isn't very inspiring to me. I couldn't care less about having "one real champion." I want to change peoples' lives.
With only 0.5% of teams attending the current Worlds model, you'd need 60 "championsplits".

Current model is 600/CMP: 600 teams at CMP / (0.5/100 qual rate) = 120,000 total teams
Future qual model: always 25% of teams (actually, I used 20% for the 60 number): 120,000 teams * .25 qual rate = 30,000 qual'd teams
Future CMP model: 400/CMPs*: 30,000 qual'd teams / 400 teams per CMP = 75 CMPs

*worth wondering how many venues and cities can actually support that.

Joe Johnson

11-05-2015, 08:48

Siri

11-05-2015, 09:03

It's about the percentage, not the number of events. You say only 25% of teams get to go to one of the two events. Just like in previous years when 25% of teams got to go to one championship. You still say "only 25% of teams made it this year, and we were one of them."I think this is the root of the disagreement. On the one hand, some people want to have a level of qualification that every team can attend once every four years. On the other hand, some people want that level to be the "Championship experience". The problem is that at least one very important group wants both of those things to be true at the same time: FIRST HQ.

I'll discuss this with regard to more "-Splits", though I'm still not sure I want to project to the point where we're "having only 0.5% of teams being able to experience the championship" (-post by Alex2614 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1481268#post1481268)).* I think the more general question that comes from that post is: how long will having more Splits actually be sustainable for both goals? Right now two Splits is just an attempt (potentially successful) to split the baby between attendance and "Championship experience"--between number of inspired people and level of inspiration. In the long term the problem is still there: is it about what percentile you are in the organization, or about getting to be inspired by "the championship experience"? For ourselves, if we framed our Worlds bid as being 1 in 4, our sponsors would be as underwhelmed as Dr. Joe's. Money comes and kids go not because we're 1 in 4, but because it's an incredible experience and a chance to play and be ranked among the best in the world.

Personally, I keep wondering why the multi-Split vs Worlds experience have to be the same thing: if we've got more Splits in our future, be it 4 or 75, have the top teams qualify for Worlds and the next tier qualify for the Splits/Super Regionals. There's nothing that says Super Regionals and Worlds have to be in series as long as they're separate.

*For the record, my personal argument (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1481289#post1481289) was that that's too far away to be worth talking about, but you [Alex] bring up (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1481289#post1481289) that it's no so far away due to the growth curves. I haven't seen these(?) or run the numbers for myself yet, but I will. Do you have curves/data available? I'd like to run some numbers to get a better feel what we're facing.

Taylor

11-05-2015, 09:21

FRC is said to have been designed after the sporting model, and that is true. Sports are highly celebrated in our culture, and if you can't beat 'em, join em.
There have been spirited discussions, on this forum and others, about the validity of calling FRC a sport. It looks like the consensus says yes, FRC is a sport.
The breakdown comes from equating FRC with the wrong types of sports.

We instantly think of the Big 4 sports - Basketball, Baseball, Football, Hockey. But these are established, traditional, entrenched. The youngest of these, Basketball, has been around since 1891. That's five times as long as our precious FRC. Not only that, but going back to Dr. Joe's point, these sports are pervasive. They've captured Top Of Mind Awareness by being literally everywhere. Television (and other media) is a big part of this, but a bigger part is the fact that these sports are publicly played/discussed all year long.
Also, the Big 4 do have world championships, but there is a defined number of elite teams, and they're all bankrolled by million- or billionaires working closely with city, county, and state funding. They do the championship because they can.

What if we look at FRC as a sport, but compare it to other models that may more closely resemble the way FRC is set up?

At every FRC event (on- or off-season) I've ever attended or heard of, there is an awards ceremony at its conclusion. I've never seen awards handed out after a regular-season baseball, hockey, basketball or football game.

I have, however, seen this tradition with golf, horse racing, tennis, boxing, auto racing, marathons, swimming. With these sports, each event stands on its own; there are a series of large events that have a lot of prestige throughout the year but are roughly equal in weight. Racing has the Triple Crown; golf and tennis with the Grand Slam.

Yes, I understand that athletes may participate in multiple grand events, and that doesn't necessarily translate to FRC. This is where I, like Richard McCann, am reminded of the CFB Bowl Series.

Oh yeah - that paradigm has become obsolete. But it worked for a while, and only got replaced 140 years after the game was invented. We haven't even hit a quarter century yet.

Another issue is that with all the sports I mentioned above - they're all boutique activities. For eleven months a year, hardly anybody gives a rip about IndyCar. Horse racing? In May, everybody is an expert, but try to start a conversation in November and you'll get blank stares. Boxing relies on events called "The Fight of the Century" - that's literally once every five generations.
These niche sports are all woven into our culture, and for brief annual flashes, they capture the nation's imagination, but for the majority of the year, nobody cares about them.

That's where we are.

Only, as Dr. Joe says, we're not televised.

Once we've enchanted the masses, then a World Champion will be meaningful. But until then, we're just trying to be bigger than kayaking.

magnets

11-05-2015, 09:23

Every year our team's primary goal is to be a World Champion. Although we have failed many times to reach our goal, we never stop trying or set a lower goal. When we don't win, we look back and find the root cause of our failure, and try to correct it. At the end of the season, we reflect on what caused us to get eliminated, and how we should have avoided it. The students are always happy because they know they helped move the team closer to the ultimate goal, and that the team will keep trying long after they graduate.

With the championsplit, we only have one more opportunity to win a world championship. Although we probably wouldn't have won any world championships in the next 20 years if there wasn't a championsplit, we are slightly depressed.

FIRST was about a culture change, where STEM competitions are really exciting and popular. Sadly, it didn't really happen. The ESPN broadcasts were the closest we ever got, and over ten years later, we still haven't made too much more progress with television coverage. Have we given up trying to change the culture, and instead decided to try to give lots of kids a fun weekend?

BrennanB

11-05-2015, 10:28

You also have to look at the turnaround on sports vs the team turnaround here. The smaller the percentage of teams going, the more "repeat offenders" you're going to have. While I love watching Einstein, it gets old seeing the exact same teams every year.

Lets see...

2015 Einstein

2/32 (6.25%) Were repeats
6/32 (18.75%) Were on Einstein in the 4 years prior
21/32 (65.62%) Were first timers.

2014 Einstein

3/16 (18.75%) Were repeats
8/16 (50.00%) Were on Einstein in the 4 years prior
8/16 (50.00%) Were first timers.

2013

0/12 (0.00%) Were repeats
1/12 (8.33%) Were on Einstein in the 4 years prior
9/12 (75.00%) Were first timers.

2012

2/12 (16.67%) Were repeats
4/12 (33.33%) Were on Einstein in the 4 years prior
4/12 (33.33%) Were first timers.

Doesn't look like we see the same teams year after year as you said. One could even say the opposite. :ahh:

It's still inspiring to a degree, but it's the same exact teams year after year. Do you really want to see a championship where it's the same 5% of teams every year for 5 years in a row? (Warning. Exaggeration but you get my point).

Many sports have athletes that repeat over and over again. People watch because of them. And there is always the "underdog" that makes it in and shocks people.

But you just proved my point anyway. Competitive teams don't compete to win the world championship. They compete to do the best they can, and it's fun. Therefore, how many teams get to go to the championship shouldn't matter in that aspect, should it? .

Teams compete for success. For some teams that is winning worlds, for some not. Who are we to tell some other team exactly what their goal should be?

Would it water down the competition if suddenly they invited more teams to the world festival? Or have several national events? Oh wait, they do actually have several national "open national championships" in FLL. And it's no less inspiring. In fact, it's MORE inspiring, because more teams can have these "national event" experiences.

You are missing some info here. World Festival is by far the most coveted event. Biggest show, coolest teams by far. Other national events are inspiring, but they don't try to "hang off of" FLL world festival by saying there are "Two world championships" National event qualification isn't run by FIRST, it's by FLL people around the world making their own separate event. Picture several IRI's, run by community leaders. Very inspiring, but definitely not world championships. These are not comparable.

MrRoboSteve

11-05-2015, 10:51

I think this is a great conversation. Too busy at work to write a long response, but have a couple observations regarding this thread:

1. I suspect that FRC team count will reach equilibrium in the US in the next couple years, primarily because teams exist in nearly every location that can sustain a team. If team count levels out, what does that mean regarding future structure.

2. TV coverage of FRC, as entertainment, would be a sign that we've succeeded in changing our culture, but should not be a goal. We can be effective in changing our culture without that happening. Don't take that as me being opposed to a televised event -- I have started floating a proposal for an uber Champs event.

3. Up in the north country where I'm at, most teams will experience a net positive in inspiration as a result of the Championsplit. Our team and our sister team are already discussing including Champs visits in our event rotation, based on the increased size of the waitlist. We'd be doing it as a substitute for our second regional.

northstardon

11-05-2015, 12:20

Which is exactly why the Championsplit model as presented by FIRST is unsustainable once we get above four Championsplit events. There are currently only four cities FIRST thinks has the facilities and location to fit a 400 team event: Atlanta, St. Louis, Houston, and Detroit (with the last one including lots of travelling between buildings). We were told at the Town Hall that venues further west "didn't work out." Where does the fifth Championsplit go? If FIRST wants to keep with their 25% number, we will need a fifth Championsplit event when we hit 8000 teams.

My understanding, from what I have read and heard (after watching the Town Hall video), is that the reason why venues further west "didn't work out" wasn't because they didn't exist...it was because they were all booked out until 2020. From the town hall transcript (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FIRST_Championship/Future-FIRST-CMP-Info-Session-Transcript.pdf):

Don Bossi: ...And so what I will say is in those areas in the southwestern and sort of western United States, those convention centers are actually completely booked out up until 2020 and beyond. We know, we’ve talked to everyone of them ad nauseam. We have begged, cajoled, and done anything we could to sweet talk it, but the honest to God truth is that those venues are really booked out far in advance.

Also...

Don Bossi: So again, our ideal probably would have been, I don’t know, let me say Phoenix (Steve Chism:Salt Lake actually), Salt Lake and Detroit, because they are sort of east coast, west coast, sort of north and south. There was absolutely nothing available over there so what we looked for was, I mean, what cities could accommodate our event.

There would have been no need to beg/cajole/do anything to secure a location further west if the issue was facility size, rather than availability during late April. And if Salt Lake City was considered big enough....

Colorado Convention Center, Denver: 54,300 m² of exhibition space
Phoenix Convention Center: 54,300 m²
Indiana Convention Center, Indianapolis: 50,000 m2
Salt Palace, Salt Lake City: 47,800 m²
Minneapolis Convention Center: 44,100 m²....(and I'm sure that there are many others in the 40-50,000 m² range)

waialua359

11-05-2015, 15:11

I think this is a great conversation. Too busy at work to write a long response, but have a couple observations regarding this thread:

I suspect that FRC team count will reach equilibrium in the US in the next couple years, primarily because teams exist in nearly every location that can sustain a team. If team count levels out, what does that mean regarding future structure.

This is an interesting topic where I had thought the same thing also. I guess its a wait and see.

Citrus Dad

11-05-2015, 15:31

First, I commend Alex2614 for an excellent set of arguments for Championsplit. I'm not going to try to quote all of his points, but I am going to address a couple of central core premises.

The two premises that I am contending are 1) that FRC can continue to inspire with a more generalized participation concept rather than a competitive excellence model, and 2) that sponsors don't care about competitive scale and success.

On the competitive excellence, I've seen several great posts about the importance of competition in the FRC model. It's been alluded to, but I think the most important unique aspect of FRC is the competitive sports model. If FIRST had chosen a different approach, it would be veering into any number of other school science programs. We don't need more of those. Keeping our eye on what makes FIRST unique is most important. And at the core of that unique mission is competitive excellence. Diluting that competitive excellence too much dilutes our uniqueness. (And I've proposed several solutions that try to limit the dilution.)

I agree with Alex2614 that FIRST needs to expand the availability of Champs to more teams, but others have made the point that teams really turn over much more often than you might be aware. I think there's perhaps two dozen perennial powerhouses, and the other 376 to 576 teams move up and down the ranks and even churn in and out of Champs. Look at our alliance--only one team 118 had even been to Champs before 2011 (other than 1671 making it as a rookie in 2005). I don't see a problem going to 800 teams so long as the two events are well structured. The real issue is "why do the two events need to be co-equals?" If we have two levels of championships, and as Alex2614 asserts that competing for the single championship isn't important to his team, why is it important that the event his team attends have a championship that is equal to the other one? Why can't one of them have a different qualification system that brings together that year's top teams if we have as much turnover as we seem to have? Why not maintain FIRST's focus on competitive excellence which is it's core uniqueness?

And I will tell you from personal experience that making a selective Championship and winning a single World Championship does make a difference to our sponsors. We are in the midst of a whirlwind of press and community outreach efforts that did NOT happen last year or the year before when we won our divisions and played on Einstein. We are going to recognized by the State Senate and a meeting with state senator that wouldn't happen if we had won part of a multiple championship. The public understands "World" champion and sponsors want that cache. You're lying to your sponsors if you claim to be "world" champion after winning a championsplit event. That could badly damage everyone's credibility. I'm pretty sure that our largest sponsor, UCD, would be less interested in funding our competition fees if we weren't chasing a true world championship. They now have prestige that other universities can't dismiss. And we hope it makes other colleges and universities more motivated to catch up by sponsoring other teams. We have an opportunity to transform our success into a bigger statewide impact that "Southwest" champion will never carry.

Yes, only a few teams can expect to win Champs, but trying to attain it inspires many teams. The powerhouses have a credible chance each year, and their efforts inspire other teams. Trying to catch 254 (and we don't think for a moment we're there yet) is our local inspiration. 3824 might be your local inspiration. And in turn, we know that we inspire other regional teams, and given your success as evidenced by making the Hopper finals you do the same. And I know 254 is inspired by their very friendly rivalry with 1114--they traveled to Waterloo last year to compete against the best of the best. We have to keep in mind what motivates the very best teams if we want to keep the chain of inspiration going, which as EricH has pointed out needs recognition.

I'd like to see more of a rationale that having two, or multiple, coequal champs is key to driving inspiration rather than having two, or multiple, tiered championships. What I've seen so far is "FIRST HQ has made a choice to change the status quo dramatically, and we're OK with that because it might work." That's not a very inspiring argument. What is the proactive argument multiple coequal champions is key to inspiration?

Which brings me to rebutting Taylor's point:
FRC is said to have been designed after the sporting model, and that is true. Sports are highly celebrated in our culture, and if you can't beat 'em, join em.

I have, however, seen this tradition with golf, horse racing, tennis, boxing, auto racing, marathons, swimming. With these sports, each event stands on its own; there are a series of large events that have a lot of prestige throughout the year but are roughly equal in weight. Racing has the Triple Crown; golf and tennis with the Grand Slam.

Yes, I understand that athletes may participate in multiple grand events, and that doesn't necessarily translate to FRC. This is where I, like Richard McCann, am reminded of the CFB Bowl Series.

Oh yeah - that paradigm has become obsolete. But it worked for a while, and only got replaced 140 years after the game was invented. We haven't even hit a quarter century yet.

The fact is that a single event in each of the listed sports is considered supreme, and the other events reside just below them. Ask any athlete which they would prefer winning. In some cases, the supreme event happens only once every 4 years, which works for career athletes but not high schools students, but the principle is the same:

gold: Masters
horse racing: Kentucky Derby
tennis: Wimbeldon
auto racing (type matters): Indianapolis, Daytona
swimming: Olympics
marathons: (this is my sport) - it's gotten very muddled which is actually hurting the sport. The Olympics has become diluted due to a lack of a monetary purse. So this is good counterexample of how to ruin a positive model through dilution. Note also that marathoners can run only 1 or 2 fast efforts a year, so it's completely different from any of the others.

There are NO coequals to these events. The associated events are series championships that key off that one supreme event.

As for college football, it moved to the BCS format because it was losing ground to other sports with the lack of a single championship. Why not learn their lesson now rather than waiting 140 years?

FIRST was about a culture change, where STEM competitions are really exciting and popular. Sadly, it didn't really happen. The ESPN broadcasts were the closest we ever got, and over ten years later, we still haven't made too much more progress with television coverage. Have we given up trying to change the culture, and instead decided to try to give lots of kids a fun weekend?

I think a big part of FIRST's problem here is that it really hasn't grasped the difference in retail and business to business marketing. I posted in the Championship Survey (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137071) thread about the problems with presentation. If groups of high school students can put on better webcasts, that means that FIRST should bring in real professionals to put together a top line package. When they do that, then ESPN or someone else will get a lot more interested. Right now grainy choppy images aren't a great selling point.

Which brings us to keeping our eye on the prize. Backing away from reengineering our culture is giving up. Trying to reach that goal is even more important to keeping the energy behind FIRST than competitive excellence.

MrRoboSteve

11-05-2015, 16:46

IKE

11-05-2015, 17:09

...snip...
marathons: (this is my sport) - it's gotten very muddled which is actually hurting the sport. The Olympics has become diluted due to a lack of a monetary purse. So this is good counterexample of how to ruin a positive model through dilution. Note also that marathoners can run only 1 or 2 fast efforts a year, so it's completely different from any of the others.
...snip...

How is it hurting the sport? From what I can tell, the sport has had tremedous growth and appeal:
http://www.runningusa.org/statistics

Siri

11-05-2015, 18:27

Are there any examples of national championships in High School sports/activities? The only examples I can think of national youth/sports championships are Spelling Bee and Little League.

All of the examples I see being discussed are at the adult level, where people have more control over their time and there are more financial resources available.In high school I know of cheerleading (NHSCC), wrestling (NHSCA), and hockey. There's also baseball invitational, and Dick's runs national basketball championship. Soccer has it for multiple age groups, not sure about any others. I don't know how prestigious some of those are within their communities, but they certainly exist.

meaubry

11-05-2015, 20:41

Hi all, it’s been a while since I posted anything, but this subject peaked my interest. Especially reading some very well thought out posts and historical memories.

I used to be involved on Team 47, Chief Delphi - started in 1997 (that was a magical year for us).

The historical discussion is interesting in that I find as time went by and things changed, so did FIRST.

It started as US FIRST, and I recall the emphasis in a speech stating the United States was in big trouble because it was being projected, that there would be more jobs in Engineering, Science, and Technology that were upcoming candidates. The US was losing the battle to just “keep up”, let alone maintain it’s status or not fall further behind the rest of the world. The clear emphasis in the early years was focused on one country. Later, the focus drastically changed and spread and became worldwide.

That is one example of how and why - FIRST is like most other expanding organizations impacted by all sorts of outside pressures, and influences.
FIRST changed as it grew (scale and quantity of teams and events to manage) and matured (became more philosophical in behavioral expectations of the participants), to best assure that it can position itself to continue trying to achieve it’s mission.

The goal or mission of this organization also seems to have changed over time. In the early years, the mission and goal was less complex and less philosophical - regarding how to eliminate the ugly part of many sports. This being the “in your face”, “win and all cost”, “if you ain’t cheatin - you aren’t trying” behaviors and attitudes demonstrated in many facets of the sporting world in the present and past.

Even with gracious professionalism and good sportsmanship being the focus, there was still room back in the early years of FIRST, for celebrating being #1 seed - regardless of how much or how little anyone cooperated with each other on the game field. Teams were ranked by winning and seeding selection rewarded teams that won.

Imagine FIRST being confined to just the game reveal & kickoff, on the first Saturday in January - followed by a 6 week build time.
Then it ended, with no way to see how successful anyone’s specific design and strategy played out on the playing field.

I believe FIRST leveraged the sport competition model, simply a "means to an ends". It provided the hook that was needed to fulfill the “rest of the story” as Paul Harvey used to say. It provided a way to further get people/teams involved, and to see how successful the 6 week game playing robot design and build process worked out. Stopping without competing would have been a monumental failure (or as some have said nothing more than a science fair experiment).

Robots driven by students from each team competing against each other, in a game revealed 6 short weeks earlier that included rules on what was allowed and not allowed in order to beat the other team(s). The outcome a game winner - as defined by the rules of the game and it ended in a sports based tournament structure used for centuries in almost every competition known to man.

Robot competing against robot -while crowds cheer wildly, sing, and dance just because it is okay and fun to do! That might just get a few people to sit up and take notice. Helping kids learn that there are opportunities after high school and college in fields of study and occupations that use the same skill sets. Yep, that might just work.

But, don’t overlook that the real inspiration isn’t solely based on the outcome of competition. Many students that we participated with, were inspired just by interacting with us and walking through “the process”. Many students were inspired by the fact that they could help build, help program, help think of strategy, help brainstorm ideas, and be part of “the team” or perhaps a member of the drive team that went out to play the game. Much more than a robot was involved, and in many cases it was actually simply a sidenote - because there were far more students not really inspired by a successful robot or a not so successful one, but instead by a very successful team of people that believed the idea of participating in that program was worth every second - and all the blood, sweat, and tears that they put into it.

In the end - We shared a common bond, no matter what role everyone played - we were all part of “the team”.

I’m hoping that as FIRST continues to grow and as multiple championship event sites are considered, that the focus is not on a need to crown a single champion, but instead on a ways to improve the overall experience so that knowing which team is the greatest - doesn’t really matter.

Mike Aubry

northstardon

11-05-2015, 21:09

And I will tell you from personal experience that making a selective Championship and winning a single World Championship does make a difference to our sponsors. We are in the midst of a whirlwind of press and community outreach efforts that did NOT happen last year or the year before when we won our divisions and played on Einstein. We are going to recognized by the State Senate and a meeting with state senator that wouldn't happen if we had won part of a multiple championship. The public understands "World" champion and sponsors want that cache. You're lying to your sponsors if you claim to be "world" champion after winning a championsplit event. That could badly damage everyone's credibility. I'm pretty sure that our largest sponsor, UCD, would be less interested in funding our competition fees if we weren't chasing a true world championship. They now have prestige that other universities can't dismiss. And we hope it makes other colleges and universities more motivated to catch up by sponsoring other teams. We have an opportunity to transform our success into a bigger statewide impact that "Southwest" champion will never carry.

I'm wondering...do you think there would have been any less recognition or interest in your team's success if, after winning a "championsplit" event in April, your team then went on to defeat the winning alliance from the other split event(s) in a subsequent summer competition (the kind of "battle of champions" idea that FIRST has seemed receptive to considering)?

I agree with the idea that sponsors might be more willing to open their corporate wallets when a team qualifies for a world championship, rather than when a team gets a wait-listed invite to a world "festival." But if this is the case, then wouldn't it be preferable to have a system that would give all 800 teams a chance of "chasing a true world championship?" Wouldn't it be better to give all 800 teams a chance to make that stronger sales pitch to their sponsors, rather than just the 400 within a tiered system? As long as there was a way of bringing the best of the best together to battle it out in a post-chamionsplit event, that possibility seems covered.

David Lame

11-05-2015, 21:45

If it means more people can experience the championship experience, and change even more lives (and not just the same teams every year), then I'm willing to sacrifice some things. People will still be just as impacted at these two events as at one.

You seem confident in this statement. I hope you are right.

This statement, though, is at the heart of the controversy. Just what is it about the season finale event that makes it so extraordinary? Is it the size of the event, or is somehow "world championship" a special phrase that, by itself, creates excitement?

Not many representatives of non-US countries correspond on Chief Delphi. I have to wonder what those people think of this move.

Anyway, I don't really know. I know there are tradeoffs, and it may be that more people going to a season finale event held at a stadium will really work, with or without a "world champion" title.

One final thought. An awful lot of people, including the post I'm replying to, seem to think that "the championship experience" is limited to the people inside the stadium. I really hope the error of that idea sinks in at least to the people in leadership positions.

ETA: And as long as I'm here, what do I, personally find inspiring? (As a fifty year old mentor, in case it matters.) I often tell people that I meet and describe First to, that I was the "brainy" kid in high school, and I did the "brainy" things. Speech. Debate. Chess.

There's nothing wrong with those events. I still play Chess. But, let's be real. BORING!!!! Two years ago, I went to a First event. (Actually, an "off season" event, much smaller, but obviously an offshoot of, First Robotics.) There was loud music. There were kids dancing. There were last minute, buzzer beating shots that put the whole crowd on their feet. This was amazing! I was hooked.

How does that affect championships? I'm not sure. I know, though, that I find myself really wanting to watch how my favorite teams are doing at the world championship, and I'm not sure I would bother at a half-championship. I'm not sure why. Rationally, there's not a lot of difference, but somehow it seems significant. I see an awful lot of comments these championship debates that are variations of, "You ought to think this is important, instead of that." Those comments don't sit well with me. People will respond according to human nature, not according to some idealized version of what we ought to think is important.

Joe Johnson

11-05-2015, 21:58

<snip>
1. I suspect that FRC team count will reach equilibrium in the US in the next couple years, primarily because teams exist in nearly every location that can sustain a team. If team count levels out, what does that mean regarding future structure.
<snip>

There are 20,000 (ish) high schools in the US. SO, yeah, FIRST FRC will reach an equilibrium in the US at some point but is that point going to be reached in the next couple (or even several) years? I don't think we're anywhere close to that point.

A few years back, when CA and MI were essentially tied for the most FIRST teams in a state at ~150 or so. I thought, well, CA is so much bigger, they have all those sexy SV start ups, they have a diverse high tech economy, their biggest employers are not going bankrupt, they're clearly going to leave MI in the dust. I didn't think MI could really expand much. In short, thought MI wasn't far from its FRC peak.

Years passed, CA now has 300+ teams. But to my surprise, MI has grown even faster still with 400+ teams.

Bottom line: I don't think we really know where FIRST is going to peak. With the right group of motivated people (I'm looking at you FiM), I don't see any reason FIRST FRC can't peak and something close to 20,000.

Dr. Joe J.

P.S. Don't tell me that MI is a special case. Of COURSE it's a special case. Every state, country, continent is a special case.

Just to be clear, yes, MI had some advantages when it comes to supporting FIRST FRC teams but not everything in MI was a bed of roses. FiM was started when many of the states' biggest employers were filing for bankruptcy. There was every reason to lay down and die. But they didn't. They worked their butts off and fought and fought and got knocked down but then got up and fought some more. From my POV, the MI experience should give every region, state, whatever hope that they can make themselves a into special case.

Citrus Dad

12-05-2015, 12:34

How is it hurting the sport? From what I can tell, the sport has had tremedous growth and appeal:
http://www.runningusa.org/statistics

The recreational participant level has increased, but that has NO tie to the competitive interest in the sport. The two strands have diverged. The participation rate has been growing continuously since the 1970s. On the other hand, obesity has been rising (http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/Pages/overweight-obesity-statistics.aspx#b)so even marathon participation hasn't created a lasting cultural change.

Citrus Dad

12-05-2015, 12:38

In high school I know of cheerleading (NHSCC), wrestling (NHSCA), and hockey. There's also baseball invitational, and Dick's runs national basketball championship. Soccer has it for multiple age groups, not sure about any others. I don't know how prestigious some of those are within their communities, but they certainly exist.

Add track and field and cross country. The New Balance Indoor (NYC) and Outdoor (Greensboro, NC) are the de facto national champs. (These are muddied a bit by the international definition of "juniors.") The individual cross country championship for decades is Footlocker (San Diego). Nike recently started a team championship (Portland) that even has a work around national high school federation rules.

Citrus Dad

12-05-2015, 12:56

I'm wondering...do you think there would have been any less recognition or interest in your team's success if, after winning a "championsplit" event in April, your team then went on to defeat the winning alliance from the other split event(s) in a subsequent summer competition (the kind of "battle of champions" idea that FIRST has seemed receptive to considering)?

Two answers to that: First, that we can tell them that we were in front of 20,000 spectators has huge impact every time I say it. That wouldn't be the case in a tail end event. Second, it already costs us over $20,000 to travel to St. Louis, of which half is airfare. And we travel with only the team members that we need to compete. That cost is a key reason why we don't go to IRI right now. Adding a second national event is very expensive.

I agree with the idea that sponsors might be more willing to open their corporate wallets when a team qualifies for a world championship, rather than when a team gets a wait-listed invite to a world "festival." But if this is the case, then wouldn't it be preferable to have a system that would give all 800 teams a chance of "chasing a true world championship?" Wouldn't it be better to give all 800 teams a chance to make that stronger sales pitch to their sponsors, rather than just the 400 within a tiered system? As long as there was a way of bringing the best of the best together to battle it out in a post-chamionsplit event, that possibility seems covered.

First, I think it's critical to have a single event to arrive at a single champion if it requires traveling out of state to any event. A district championship model would greatly reduce those costs, so that option might work. As I said, travel costs are a huge barries to multiple events.

So given that a single event is critical, it's not possible to have 800 teams at a single event. I agree with FIRST on that point. So given those two constraints, it's not readily possible to allow 800 teams to compete for the championship on a single year. That's why we've proposed different formulations for a two-tiered championship.

The post championsplit championship undermines the single most attractive aspect for FIRST of publicizing its event to the broader culture--that 20,000 people are screaming in the stands watching Einstein. The media LOVES events with large vocal crowds. Competing in high school gym in front of several hundred spectators just doesn't cut it.

Citrus Dad

12-05-2015, 13:07

ETA: And as long as I'm here, what do I, personally find inspiring? (As a fifty year old mentor, in case it matters.) I often tell people that I meet and describe First to, that I was the "brainy" kid in high school, and I did the "brainy" things. Speech. Debate. Chess.

There's nothing wrong with those events. I still play Chess. But, let's be real. BORING!!!! Two years ago, I went to a First event. (Actually, an "off season" event, much smaller, but obviously an offshoot of, First Robotics.) There was loud music. There were kids dancing. There were last minute, buzzer beating shots that put the whole crowd on their feet. This was amazing! I was hooked.

How does that affect championships? I'm not sure. I know, though, that I find myself really wanting to watch how my favorite teams are doing at the world championship, and I'm not sure I would bother at a half-championship. I'm not sure why. Rationally, there's not a lot of difference, but somehow it seems significant. I see an awful lot of comments these championship debates that are variations of, "You ought to think this is important, instead of that." Those comments don't sit well with me. People will respond according to human nature, not according to some idealized version of what we ought to think is important.

I want to add a bit to David's point. Here I'll interject that I'm a professional economist so I think a lot about the difference between what people "ought to do" and what they "really do." Almost universally, people need incentives (both positive and negative) to do what we as a community want them to do. In some ways, social norms can drive behavior, but those move very slowly and still have uneven effects. I believe that FIRST has used two unusual incentive structures to create an atmosphere of coopertion. The first is the rotating qualification alliances. Other teams are both opponents and cooperants. This arrangement is truly unique and powerful. The second is the Chairman's Award. Even if teams don't win, many still make an effort. And it creates a social norm that even non submitting teams follow.

So FIRST needs to consider its incentives in moving forward in redesigning the championships. Unfortunately, I don't always see that elements of FIRST (e.g., the GDC) really think through the incentives. This year's game is exhibit A. I'm concerned that championsplit is Exhibit B.

jvriezen

12-05-2015, 14:42

Years passed, CA now has 300+ teams. But to my surprise, MI has grown even faster still with 400+ teams.

MN has nearly 200 teams this year, more than the 156 Varsity HS Hockey teams (hockey is very big in MN). Note that MN has more FRC participation per capita than any other state, I believe, so CA and MI have some catching up to do to get where MN is.

I think there is a ton of FRC growth potential, even within MN, especially for more rural school districts-- although FTC may be more appropriate-- that's growing as well.

MrRoboSteve

12-05-2015, 14:43

Summary of known HS activity championships

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=35d706fb0c681610!174849&authkey=!AA-WFZgZIWlFY1Q&ithint=file%2cxlsx

If someone knows how to create tables in posts, I'll put the data in this post.

Please PM me if you are aware of other activities that have national championships.

Caleb Sykes

12-05-2015, 17:07

MN has nearly 200 teams this year, more than the 156 Varsity HS Hockey teams (hockey is very big in MN). Note that MN has more FRC participation per capita than any other state, I believe, so CA and MI have some catching up to do to get where MN is.

Michigan and Minnesota have almost exactly the same number of FRC teams per capita. Both have 3.5 teams per 100,000 people. It doesn't really mean anything to go to any higher precision than this, so I'm willing to call it a draw.

sources: census.gov, usfirst.org

Joe Johnson

12-05-2015, 18:12

MN has nearly 200 teams this year, more than the 156 Varsity HS Hockey teams (hockey is very big in MN). Note that MN has more FRC participation per capita than any other state, I believe, so CA and MI have some catching up to do to get where MN is.

I think there is a ton of FRC growth potential, even within MN, especially for more rural school districts-- although FTC may be more appropriate-- that's growing as well.

I meant no disrespect to MN. In reretrospect I should have referenced them. Like all humans, I am prone to believe that the world began turning the day I drew my first breadth. I'm from MI so I spoke from that experience.

But of course you are right. The MN story is one that more people should know about and emulate to the extent they can.

To MN, long may she be a hive of FRC growth and activity.

Dr. Joe J.

Richard Wallace

12-05-2015, 19:20

To MN, long may she be a hive of FRC growth and activity.
I really enjoy working with FRC Volunteers from Minnesota.

However, the term "hive of FRC growth and activity" brought to mind another memorable instance of the word "hive (www.youtube.com/watch?v=0znNiN0lYAQ )".

jvriezen

12-05-2015, 23:07

I meant no disrespect to MN. In reretrospect I should have referenced them. Like all humans, I am prone to believe that the world began turning the day I drew my first breadth. I'm from MI so I spoke from that experience.

But of course you are right. The MN story is one that more people should know about and emulate to the extent they can.

To MN, long may she be a hive of FRC growth and activity.

Dr. Joe J.

And I didn't mean any disrespect to CA and MI or posters about those states. I was referencing the 'more teams per capita' because I had heard that claim numerous times in MN FRC circles. Maybe it was more so the case several years ago.

Nemo

13-05-2015, 02:00

Citrus Dad

13-05-2015, 02:31

What's important is how our programs impact the students.

Crowning a single champion is not cosmically significant.

Is anyone expecting the students to indifferently, nihilistically mope around because they can't attain sole champion status?

What is the true prize?

There's a bigger cascade of motivations and inspirations that come from whether there is a single championship or a dispersal of championships. The discussions in this thread are about the relative importance of that cascade of influences. It's really never as simple as it first appears.

MrRoboSteve

13-05-2015, 10:19

jvriezen

13-05-2015, 11:04

I've updated my spreadsheet with data from PMs from several people.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=35d706fb0c681610!174849&authkey=!AA-WFZgZIWlFY1Q&ithint=file%2cxlsx

Based on the data I have collected, the FRC championship is the largest youth activity championship in the US, measured by:

. number of youth attending
. number of teams attending (for team activities)

You list three winners for FIRST, when alliances have 4 members. And since Chairman's is the most prestigious award, where is that counted? Also, I'm assuming other sports have different levels/categories resulting in multiple winners. IRST at the HS level also has FTC. Shouldn't that be accounted for (You list the row as FIRST, not FRC-- I don't think FTC is a separate row, given how other activities are represented.

MrRoboSteve

13-05-2015, 13:26

Thanks for the feedback.

I added a new line for FTC -- does anyone have an estimate of FTC team and individual participation at Champs?

popnbrown

13-05-2015, 14:32

Thanks for the feedback.

I added a new line for FTC -- does anyone have an estimate of FTC team and individual participation at Champs?

There's 128 FTC teams that go to World Championships.

I've traditionally used (and have heard) the average size of FTC teams being 7. So, 896 students.

popnbrown

13-05-2015, 15:41

Full Disclosure: Not sure where I stand but I think I lean towards supporting the split.

My Historical Perspective Conclusion:
I believe FIRST is trying to achieve culture change not just in creating STEM leaders but also with values such as Coopertition and Gracious Professionalism, which I see as a different way of competing than traditional sports. So my conclusion...is that to achieve culture change you need to disrupt the current culture, and provide something radical by current measures. This inherently leads me to be more open to FIRST trying non-traditional methods.

This still doesn't answer whether the split is correct or not, and the answer to that relies around two concepts of "winning" and inspiration.

A Ramble:
In one of the other threads, someone mentioned that inspiration can be achieved with and without "winning". My experience as a mentor is limited, but I think that is a relatively accurate statement. I've been able to keep students interested in FRC by showing them the potential for what they can achieve, and I've been able to keep students interested in FRC by pushing them to strive to "win". This to me ultimately means that it's possible to get and keep students interested in FIRST without the possibility of "winning".

A big question for me is if I'd lose the student that was motivated to "win" or if I would be able to inspire the student via other means. Tough question....and one I can't answer or get an answer without experiencing it for myself. Hopefully, I'll be wiser in a few years :D
End ramble

Anyways, back on topic, there are two issues at the core of this argument. At least from all the posts I've read everyone keeps going around these two ideologies.
1. Is "winning" wanted for inspiration in FIRST? (Ugh..Ramble-ish again: A sub-question that I don't have an answer for, is whether it's ACTUALLY possible to inspire without "winning" and writing this, I think an answer to this sub-question is actually what we all may be arguing about)
2. What is the inspiration for? Is it to make STEM "cool"? Is it to build an amazing robot? Is it to radically change society's values? What is this culture change are we trying to achieve? (not how, but what)

Hmm..I'm an idealist, so my answers as of now are "No (but I'll confirm)" and "Radically change society's values and instill more Coopertition/Gracious Professionalism".

I think these are personal questions that are being forced on the community due to expansion.

Hmm...Geez, I think this is just a bunch of me rambling about my inner thoughts. Well I'd rather my thoughts be put out on CD than elsewhere so...hopefully I did something constructive.

John Retkowski

13-05-2015, 16:07

2. What is the inspiration for? Is it to make STEM "cool"? Is it to build an amazing robot? Is it to radically change society's values? What is this culture change are we trying to achieve? (not how, but what)

I don't think we have to guess on this one. FIRST has made it clear in my opinion.

http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision

GreyingJay

13-05-2015, 16:43

I don't have much to add to this discussion, partly because this is my first year being involved with FIRST/FRC. My team went to World Championships for the first time ever (off the wait list, we didn't win a regional) and we had fun and many students were inspired.

When I first heard about this news my gut reaction was "but there needs to be a winner if you're going to call it championships!" I, because I am new, assumed that this was always the case.

I only recently discovered a thread on CD talking about the eligibility changes in 2005 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29003), and in so doing realized that it wasn't always this way. That, in fact, it wasn't always about having a winner at all. I found that thread to be a fascinating discussion especially given the climate now.

It seems to me that the new generation of FIRSTers, myself included, puts a high emphasis on competing, winning, and declaring a winner, and assumed it was simply always so. That the Championships belongs to the winners. When, in fact, it wasn't, and the exact opposite was once true (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=269628&postcount=25).

popnbrown

13-05-2015, 17:10

I don't think we have to guess on this one. FIRST has made it clear in my opinion.

http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision

I was getting at trying to really understand what that means. The mission itself includes 5 different things (STEM skills, innovation, self-confidence, communication, leadership), so do these all get equal weight? In addition, what about the values (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/gracious-professionalism) that are promoted all the time, how much do those play in?

Basically, would it be good enough if as many students want to be like Elon Musk as they would Lebron James? Would it be good enough if all students became competent e-mail writers? Would it be good enough if all students learned to cooperite?

Maybe I'm trying to question something that's unanswerable as a community, and is something that's more personal.

Citrus Dad

13-05-2015, 18:53

I don't think we have to guess on this one. FIRST has made it clear in my opinion.

http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision

"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."

And Kamen's underlying insight to this was that our culture currently celebrates sports success and young people dream of being professional athletes, so let's use that same approach to celebrate something more useful.

Brennan4256

13-05-2015, 19:54

I agree with everything about history and how FIRST is about inspiration and recognition.

And I can see both sides to the argument, but I have had a personal impact with the effectiveness of the single championship.

Our team has been lucky enough to make worlds 3 out of 4 years, and as a rising senior I have attended two champs myself. And what champs did for me was that it gave me an entire new level of inspiration, whether watching Einstein or creeping on 254s pit. But competing and seeing the high level of robots and competition furthered my inspiration for the powers of science and tech. Likewise, at worlds this year I saw the same looks of inspiration from a few freshman, and seeing the concentrated best of FRC made them recognize the same thing I did.

On the other hand FIRST knows what they are doing and bringing in more teams would allow this to impact more teams. But having a split of the teams won't have the same impact it may have a net overall higher impact.

We will just have to wait and see. Thanks for all the opinions. I will share these with the team. I think it's a good topic to mull over.

jman4747

13-05-2015, 21:27

"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."

And Kamen's underlying insight to this was that our culture currently celebrates sports success and young people dream of being professional athletes, so let's use that same approach to celebrate something more useful.

But do we have to do it exactly like them? We have a competition and I think playing with the structure is a valid way to try to achieve our goals. Also our goals don't usually align with most other sports so I can see us not using the exact same system.

BrennanB

13-05-2015, 23:46

But do we have to do it exactly like them? We have a competition and I think playing with the structure is a valid way to try to achieve our goals. Also our goals don't usually align with most other sports so I can see us not using the exact same system.

Maybe we could. Why fix it if it is already working fantastically well??? Or are you saying FIRST is currently doing a subpar job?

For all those "It's not about the robot" points, an interesting analogy that I have been thinking about is as follows:

FIRST isn't about the robot, it's about the destination.

Traveling isn't about the plane/car/train you take, it's where you end up that matters.

Robots are like your car, they get you to where you want to be. While ultimately the way you get to your destination matters little, you would be silly to say that the way that it does it is irrelevant.

You would rather drive a Lamborghini than a Dodge Caravan.

You would rather have a competition that recognizes those that deserve recognition.

Doesn't matter how I look at it, but owning a Lamborghini will always be more inspiring than owning 100 dodge caravans.

Doesn't matter how I look at it, but going to an event where the entire world comes to compete, will always be more inspiring than going to 100 events where only some of the teams compete under the same roof.

jman4747

14-05-2015, 00:10

Maybe we could. Why fix it if it is already working fantastically well??? Or are you saying FIRST is currently doing a subpar job?

For all those "It's not about the robot" points, an interesting analogy that I have been thinking about is as follows:

FIRST isn't about the robot, it's about the destination.

Traveling isn't about the plane/car/train you take, it's where you end up that matters.

Robots are like your car, they get you to where you want to be. While ultimately the way you get to your destination matters little, you would be silly to say that the way that it does it is irrelevant.

You would rather drive a Lamborghini than a Dodge Caravan.

You would rather have a competition that recognizes those that deserve recognition.

Doesn't matter how I look at it, but owning a Lamborghini will always be more inspiring than owning 100 dodge caravans.

Going to an event where the entire world comes to compete, will always be more inspiring than going to 100 events where only some of the teams compete under the same roof.

Doubt we will get to 100 different champs or even 10...

Dodge caravans have gotten our robots to several events in a pinch. But when we go to a big and or out of state competition and one of our sponsors loans us a Mercedes Sprinter it's much better. The dodge does the job but upgrading to the Sprinter is more optimal. Engineers optimize and prioritize all the time and so should FIRST. Deal with the trade offs and leverage the benefits.

I don't think FIRST has done a bad job in the past but this system was designed with future challenges in mind, a good feature for any system.

Other sports teams and organizations don't serve the same purpose and subsequently neither do their competition structures. It can and has worked but we can still make it our own.

grstex

14-05-2015, 00:45

Maybe we could. Why fix it if it is already working fantastically well??? Or are you saying FIRST is currently doing a subpar job?

For all those "It's not about the robot" points, an interesting analogy that I have been thinking about is as follows:

FIRST isn't about the robot, it's about the destination.

Traveling isn't about the plane/car/train you take, it's where you end up that matters.

Robots are like your car, they get you to where you want to be. While ultimately the way you get to your destination matters little, you would be silly to say that the way that it does it is irrelevant.

You would rather drive a Lamborghini than a Dodge Caravan.

You would rather have a competition that recognizes those that deserve recognition.

Doesn't matter how I look at it, but owning a Lamborghini will always be more inspiring than owning 100 dodge caravans.

Doesn't matter how I look at it, but going to an event where the entire world comes to compete, will always be more inspiring than going to 100 events where only some of the teams compete under the same roof.

I would rather move my apartment in a Dodge Caravan than a Lamborghini. I wouldn't take a plane to get across town for work each day (though it might be preferable to Houston traffic). Owning a Lambo isn't inspiring if you end up over your head in debt.

You're right when you say that how you get there matters, but your goal informs your choice of vehicle. Think about that carefully, and ask yourself: What IS the destination, and what is the best way to get there? Not how would you LIKE to get there; What is the BEST way?

AdamHeard

14-05-2015, 01:18

I don't think many people in this discussion have yet realized that the two sides are so far apart (and viewing things from such extremely different directions) that they aren't even having the same argument.

Unrelated to the above point... By putting less focus on competition (which is a direction of thinking this decision indicates) you alienate a portion of the community. This portion is the one doing most of the high level inspiration and training of the community, and losing even a percentage of them will have trickle down affects that lower the quality of all teams.

Sure, moving to a two champs format (more of a convention/festival) you make all the teams that are nerd clubs happier... but nerd clubs don't really change the culture (yes, you all have anecdotal examples). Most of the population has no desire to join a nerd club. It's easy to get high and mighty and look down on them for not seeing things "our way", but the organization needs to realize that we need to bring in more outsides, and to do so we need to get away from being nerd clubs.

The general public wants competition and excitement. There is no reason an increase in competition has to lead to a decrease in sportsmanship (aka GP). By hinting that GP can only be maintained with competition being sub-servant sends the message to students that they can't be competitive AND have GP.

jman4747

14-05-2015, 02:15

This portion is the one doing most of the high level inspiration and training of the community

Do you value that more or less than having one champion?

dodar

14-05-2015, 02:28

Do you value that more or less than having one champion?

It goes hand in hand.

NoahTappen

14-05-2015, 07:55

In Michigan we have a similar format to two championships for FLL. Both teams address themselves as state Champs. And the only problem is the fact that only one team goes to the FIRST Championship. It doesn't make the competition any less competitive.

Also Imagine years down the road when there is a North North American Championship, a South South American Championship, a European Championship, a South American Championship, an East Asian Championship, a Pacific Championship, And a North African Championship. Then we will have a need for a "World Championship" but having more competitions doesn't take away from a competitive nature it only allows more people to be exposed to FIRST and encourage growth in STEM fields.

BrennanB

14-05-2015, 08:06

Doubt we will get to 100 different champs or even 10...

The intent was that for me personally, I could attend 100 events that don't have the entire world there, or one world event, and I would chose the world event every time. Even if it was competing at 100, and going to watch the 1.

Dodge caravans have gotten our robots to several events in a pinch. But when we go to a big and or out of state competition and one of our sponsors loans us a Mercedes Sprinter it's much better. The dodge does the job but upgrading to the Sprinter is more optimal. Engineers optimize and prioritize all the time and so should FIRST. Deal with the trade offs and leverage the benefits.

I would rather move my apartment in a Dodge Caravan than a Lamborghini. I wouldn't take a plane to get across town for work each day (though it might be preferable to Houston traffic). Owning a Lambo isn't inspiring if you end up over your head in debt.

You are missing the forest, because you are too busy thinking about how bad that one dead tree looks.

Of course there are a hundred thousand variables that in real life determine if it makes sense for you to buy a "Lamborghini". You would be in some serious debt if you bought 100 Dodge Caravans as well. :rolleyes:

You're right when you say that how you get there matters, but your goal informs your choice of vehicle. Think about that carefully, and ask yourself: What IS the destination, and what is the best way to get there? Not how would you LIKE to get there; What is the BEST way?

Correct, but we already know which one is more inspiring. It's a no brainer. It's the Lambo. We are talking about inspiration and recognition. To me, a lambo is blatantly obvious that it fits those two criteria better even if you have 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000 dodge caravans (or any average car of your choosing) the lambo is more inspiring. This seems blatantly true for one world event as well. You can add as many "sorta" world events as you want. None of them will touch the inspiration that happens with a true world event.

I don't think many people in this discussion have yet realized that the two sides are so far apart (and viewing things from such extremely different directions) that they aren't even having the same argument.

Unfortunately this has been the case for a long time now.

It goes hand in hand.

Exactly. There are many real life examples of this.

Taylor

14-05-2015, 09:36

Basically, would it be good enough if as many students want to be like Elon Musk as they would Lebron James? Would it be good enough if all students became competent e-mail writers? Would it be good enough if all students learned to cooperite?
To steal the conclusion from the Mentor-Driven vs Student-Driven Team debate:

It depends on what works best for your team. YMMV.
It is my opinion that HQ is trying to find a solution that works the best for the most teams.
Some may feel alienated; some may disagree with aspects of the proposed solution; some may have 'better' ideas. But HQ is trying to work toward (what it believes is) the greater good, and I can respect that.

jman4747

14-05-2015, 09:49

It goes hand in hand.

Those are two different tasks. How is the competition structure related to community enrichment other than the fact of their being a competition is why you may have started doing that work? Are you saying that splitting championships thus prevents that sort of work?

It comes across like anything not directly related to the competition being valuable to you is solely dependent on winning and how important the victory is. I wouldn't think that would be the case.

You are missing the forest, because you are too busy thinking about how bad that one dead tree looks.

Of course there are a hundred thousand variables that in real life determine if it makes sense for you to buy a "Lamborghini". You would be in some serious debt if you bought 100 Dodge Caravans as well. :rolleyes:

Correct, but we already know which one is more inspiring. It's a no brainer. It's the Lambo. We are talking about inspiration and recognition. To me, a lambo is blatantly obvious that it fits those two criteria better even if you have 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000 dodge caravans (or any average car of your choosing) the lambo is more inspiring. This seems blatantly true for one world event as well. You can add as many "sorta" world events as you want. None of them will touch the inspiration that happens with a true world event.

And why can't the two, not 100, and not ten world events both be valuable on their own? Your answer is lack of one champion and that's not enough to devalue the events significantly for most people.

northstardon

14-05-2015, 10:06

IKE

14-05-2015, 11:07

...snip...

You would rather drive a Lamborghini than a Dodge Caravan.

You would rather have a competition that recognizes those that deserve recognition.

Doesn't matter how I look at it, but owning a Lamborghini will always be more inspiring than owning 100 dodge caravans.
...snip.... [/B]

My emphasis added:
Which is more inspiring, owning any lamborghini, or:

Owning your own fleet (100 caravans) of new app based taxis which move make about 1,000,00 person to place trips per year (1.5 passengers per average trip x 100 vehicles x 20 fairs per day x 330 days per year of vehicle usage (assuming 35 days of downtime for general maintenance). http://www.boston-cabs.com/2009/01/taxi-van-service.html

Owning a grocery/meals deliver company that assist 5,000 people get fresh meals/groceries each year (assuming 1 vehicle could service about 50 unique customers per week per vehicle) making 250,000 deliveries and facilitating 100 new jobs... http://www.peapod.com/

Or having a fleet of 100 Minivans testing protype battery management system: http://www.allpar.com/corporate/electric-cars.html

Or a fleet of minivans that are retrofitted to include side ramps so they are wheelchair accessible: http://www.braunability.com/commercial/wheelchair-van/side-entry-dodge-minivan.html

I am picking on you a bit, but I was inspired by the Lamborghini when I was in elementary school. I specifically remember coveting a poster of this image: http://kleberly.com/284146-lamborghini-countach.html up until I was about 10 years old. I never did get one.

**************************************

The above examples are not just pulled from thin air...
I was personally was inspired by the Dodge minivan as it was a neat vehicle taking me to and from school, games, and 4-H events through out my life. Cubby holes, flip down seats, interesting over-center cam link for the rear windows... I must have played with that over center linkage 1,000 times as a kid.
Around 13 years old, we were in a high speed rear-ending on a freeway, and it not only saved our lives, but we were able to fix that van and I used it in College.
During college, my first internship was working at Braun Corporation which retrofitted minivans with a new floor and fold down ramp for wheel-chairs. They owner had MS and even had his converted so he could drive with a joystick similar to his wheelchair. It was a small engineering department, but they did very inspirational work.

My second internship was with Chrysler, a friend also interning at chrysler was part of the TEV program where Chrysler was experimenting with Electric Minivans durin the 90s and did do some Zero-emission fleetwork. I was inspired by this experience to take an electric vehicles course during my master's program.

While working at Chrysler, I worked in advanced vehicle engineering on some fold flat seat concepts, and got a patent for a multifunction liftgate (again inspired by minivans).

I later went on to work on Challenger and Viper. (Just stating this so you know that I too like performance cars).

Also in the early 2000s, my grandmother lost her personal mobility. She was able to get in and out of my mom's minivan, and really appreciated the support from the "meals on wheels" people that helped her live comfortably in her own home without having to "get out" too much.

Around 2007 or 2008, I was at a really neat vintage car show where I got the chance to finally see a Lamborghini Coontach (LP-400s) in person. It looked short, wide, and had 14" wheels. Its 0-60 was 5.9 seconds and it was $100,000 1985 dollars. By 2005, I could by an SRT4 that had a faster 0-60 for $19,900 2005 dollars...

As just one other point. I would be willing to bet that Chrysler sponsors more FRC teams than Lamborghini, and the money for that sponsorship is largely due to the profits of one of the companies best money makers (mini-van).

It was a neat car, but to be very clear, had nowhere near the impact or inspiration that any one of the above dodge Caravans had on me, not too mention the collective impact that those less than 100 had on me or the other people I have mentioned.

I clearly look at things a little different than you, but I am pretty partial to minivans. Even now, I work on the tracked military minivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle)... though I would never call it that in front of the soldiers... Its infotainment and gaming system is a little too dangerous to play around with.

I am not saying that the Lamborghini should not be inspiring (I prefer Viper), just maybe you might want to look a little harder about what inspiration 100 minivans could provide. ...Your Mileage May Vary...

BrennanB

14-05-2015, 12:37

And why can't the two, not 100, and not ten world events both be valuable on their own? Your answer is lack of one champion and that's not enough to devalue the events significantly for most people.

When you read what I wrote, you will see that I said "an event where the entire world competes" Not "I want a overall winner"

Speaking of which, why is "you want one true winner" even an argument anymore? Haven't we long established that FIRST is looking into ways where a one true winner can be found? (Getting winners from both champs to play eachother?)

Like. Ugh.... Let's give up on that one.

I am not saying that the Lamborghini should not be inspiring (I prefer Viper), just maybe you might want to look a little harder about what inspiration 100 minivans could provide. ...Your Mileage May Vary...

You do have a point. Informed individuals may have different opinions once they are informed. But the public isn't informed. I can say with very high confidence an uninformed person is more likely to be inspired by a big competition where the whole world goes to, rather than a competition where a part of the world goes to.

And then there are the people who think or pretend they are informed and know what they are talking about, but actually have no clue.

The majority of the population is the uninformed or the "pseudo-informed" These are the people we care about changing the program to inspire, not the ones who are already super informed and hooked.

AdamHeard

14-05-2015, 12:42

Do you value that more or less than having one champion?

Why is this a comparison that has to be made?

jman4747

14-05-2015, 13:30

Why is this a comparison that has to be made?

Because you linked the two here

Unrelated to the above point... By putting less focus on competition (which is a direction of thinking this decision indicates) you alienate a portion of the community. This portion is the one doing most of the high level inspiration and training of the community, and losing even a percentage of them will have trickle down affects that lower the quality of all teams.

You're implying that:

1. This split alienates a portion of the community here: "Unrelated to the above point... By putting less focus on competition (which is a direction of thinking this decision indicates) you alienate a portion of the community."

2. That this is enough to have those teams quit (here: "and losing even a percentage of them") and stop doing the "inspiration and training of the community".

So I'll ask, would you rather continue inspiring and training the community or leave (as you imply by saying: "losing even a percentage of them") because you cannot have one champion/championship and can no longer be the "one true champion"?

AdamHeard

14-05-2015, 13:33

Because you linked the two here

You're implying that:

1. This split alienates a portion of the community here: "Unrelated to the above point... By putting less focus on competition (which is a direction of thinking this decision indicates) you alienate a portion of the community."

2. That this is enough to have those teams quit (here: "and losing even a percentage of them") and stop doing the "inspiration and training of the community".

So I'll ask, would you rather continue inspiring and training the community or leave (as you imply by saying: "losing even a percentage of them") because you cannot have one champion/championship and can no longer be the "one true champion"?

You're reading pretty far into what I said.

I don't think you'll see many people leave. However, you will see many that are less motivated than in the past (unfortunately, this is impossible to measure).

You asked me to value one over the other. Why do I have to? Why can't the both be very important to me?

Caleb Sykes

14-05-2015, 13:53

I don't think you'll see many people leave. However, you will see many that are less motivated than in the past (unfortunately, this is impossible to measure).

Of all of my qualms with the championsplit, this is the biggest one. Many of the greatest mentors of the greatest teams are upset about the championsplit. That should scare everyone.

Any organization that alienates the top 1% of its contributors will not last long. My greatest fear is that the championsplit decision is indicative of more decisions like this to come which will push away the most important people in FRC. If I see that happening, I'm out, plain and simple. I have no interest in being part of an organization which does not value its most important members.

jman4747

14-05-2015, 14:28

When you read what I wrote, you will see that I said "an event where the entire world competes" Not "I want a overall winner"

Speaking of which, why is "you want one true winner" even an argument anymore? Haven't we long established that FIRST is looking into ways where a one true winner can be found? (Getting winners from both champs to play eachother?)

Like. Ugh.... Let's give up on that one.

You do have a point. Informed individuals may have different opinions once they are informed. But the public isn't informed. I can say with very high confidence an uninformed person is more likely to be inspired by a big competition where the whole world goes to, rather than a competition where a part of the world goes to.

And then there are the people who think or pretend they are informed and know what they are talking about, but actually have no clue.

The majority of the population is the uninformed or the "pseudo-informed" These are the people we care about changing the program to inspire, not the ones who are already super informed and hooked.

Some people are still pointing to "want one true winner" as a significant negative to the switch, granted that you didn't mention it there.

And there are so many other events to show uninformed people what we are about. At that stage few people actually care about the winners and awards and things they know nothing about. They are just amazed that this is something high school students do and that there are international teams at all.

I've had people interested by showing them the robot or even just talking to them. You don't need one big event to pull people in you need a year round multifaceted effort across many areas. And yes there is something spectacular to the energy of an event especially a world championship but do you still not come away from your regional tired with no voice covered in WD-40, red'n tacky grease, and buttons? I still think it's amazing we do that at all and so do a lot of new people. I'd hate to be a part of an organization that valued winning over that.

You're reading pretty far into what I said.

I don't think you'll see many people leave. However, you will see many that are less motivated than in the past (unfortunately, this is impossible to measure).

You asked me to value one over the other. Why do I have to? Why can't the both be very important to me?

Because you suggested that the split championship would cause lack of motivation to help others. So do you value that work more than what you lose from splitting championships which does not directly affect said work? If you do than you won't quit. If what is lost by splitting championships is more important than you may. It's an old fashion cost/benefit analysis.

Rachel Lim

14-05-2015, 14:49

Most of what I'd say in response to this discussion I've already said in my post about why we care about the competition aspect of FRC (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1479777&postcount=105) but I thought I'd add in a bit more.

People care about winning. They want to be the best. I'd argue it's a natural instinct that came out of the desire to survive. Whatever it is, that desire to be the best drives people to do more than they'd ever do otherwise. It drives innovation to happen faster than it would ever happen otherwise. In FRC it creates the very top teams.

Instead of trying to work against that view, why can't FIRST use it to their advantage? Use the fact that people are competitive to bring the program farther than it would ever go otherwise. They've been doing it for a long time--it's what sets FIRST apart from most other STEM programs.

So I'll ask, would you rather continue inspiring and training the community or leave (as you imply by saying: "losing even a percentage of them") because you cannot have one champion/championship and can no longer be the "one true champion"?
I'm going to ask you something: if aiming for the top is what has been pushing teams on, and what has created the powerhouse teams, do we want to lose that?

FRC as a program will go on without them. Even if (and I don't believe this will happen, but just imagine) the top 10 or 20 teams suddenly disappeared, the program isn't going to just collapse. But FRC as we know it will not be the same, and not in a good way.

So much of the awe, inspiration, and "how is that even possible?" I felt this year came from watching the top teams. Staying up to watch 148's reveal over and over (and it came out at like 11pm), reloading CD until 254 posted their reveal, looking through all the pictures and videos of 1114 my friends and I could find to try and figure out how their robot worked, watching the webcasts as 2056 won their 22nd regional in a row, plotting data to see how high an OPR of 158 really is, talking to various teams at champs, watching the matches on Einstein...if these experiences were possible because of the desire to be the top--and some teams getting there--is that bad?

I'll be a senior when the split champs is implemented. The rookies who join that year will not experience a single championship as a student. Do I think FRC will drastically change in 2017 just because of that change? Yes and no. I don't think everyone is suddenly going to stop trying to do their best. But I do think something will change. At the very least we won't be seeing those final matches played out in front of everyone at champs, and I think the changes go deeper than that. They may not know what is missing, I may not know what is missing--we may never know exactly what we've lost. I can imagine, but will never know, what it's like to have champs without divisions, and I think this is a larger change than that.

Losing the top to benefit the bottom isn't a trade we should be looking at, not when there's a way to help everyone. I'll say it again: 2021, districts > DCMPs or super regionals > single champs. Both levels of inspiration, less traveling for a larger competition, less expensive per competition, more sustainable, etc.

Knufire

14-05-2015, 15:01

PayneTrain

14-05-2015, 15:13

Adam mentioned this earlier, but I'd like to reiterate that those top 1% of teams do a pretty significant amount of behind the scenes work to help FRC function the way it does. From key volunteer positions to helping start new teams, I'd argue that FIRST is shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can get away with demotivating their elite.

Since some of the top 1% also helps run local organizations and events, you don't have to worry about needing new teams or KVs when there are no events to go to!

Michael Corsetto

14-05-2015, 15:27

Adam mentioned this earlier, but I'd like to reiterate that those top 1% of teams do a pretty significant amount of behind the scenes work to help FRC function the way it does. From key volunteer positions to helping start new teams, I'd argue that FIRST is shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can get away with demotivating their elite.

I would instead say that FIRST Board of Directors is removing the current source of motivation that pushes many teams ("elite" and "non-elite") forward.

Teams have the choice to re-establish this source of motivation and teams have the volunteer capacity to make it happen by 2017.

-Mike

Lil' Lavery

14-05-2015, 15:43

I would say the motivations for the vast majority of FIRST teams remains unchanged. I would also contend that while the "1%" does frequently help the community a lot, there's plenty of the "99%" that do just as much for the community. Lest we forget the team best judged a role model for other teams to follow played a grand total of four playoff matches in four events this season.

While I don't support the split championship, the attitude that the elite somehow do more for the community than other teams and thus deserve to be catered to more than other teams is just plain wrong.

Similar, I don't like the attitude that because FIRST employs a sports-model that it is a sport and should do everything like sports. FIRST is more than a sport.

waialua359

14-05-2015, 15:47

As stated earlier by others, the 1% represents a greater significant amount of influence and inspiration than the percentages suggest.
When you look at who these teams are, many of these programs were started a long time ago, or consists of mentors that came from other programs from much earlier. These mentors (many of which are former students) are critical for FIRST to succeed and grow.
In looking much deeper, it would be interesting to further research how these veterans became involved with FIRST. I always thought the majority of the best teams that succeed in the competition aspect still do so today because of how they became involved in FIRST initially.
When 359 and 368 first formed in Hawaii, it was not a random selection. We both were successful in racing electric cars as part of the Electrathon Marathon competition since 1996 and when FIRST was looking to expand to Hawaii, the STEM figureheads in Hawaii looked to both of our schools first.
Other examples include:
148 who is an original team and their partnership with IFI-sponsored team.
610 and 1114 consists of mentors who were from 188, the 1st Canadian FRC program.
118, 233, 254, 399 are veterans for FIRST due to their association with NASA centers.
67, 33, etc. have GM, Chrysler, and other big industry roots.
Tons of other inspiring programs of which the list goes on and on.

These generous, outstanding mentors are your stakeholders. Inspire and support them and they will ultimately make FIRST a better program year after year.

AdamHeard

14-05-2015, 15:50

Because you suggested that the split championship would cause lack of motivation to help others. So do you value that work more than what you lose from splitting championships which does not directly affect said work? If you do than you won't quit. If what is lost by splitting championships is more important than you may. It's an old fashion cost/benefit analysis.

I'm saying that the we shouldn't be framing the conversation in the form of "Inspiration versus competitiveness".

Ideally, we can find ways to increase both inspiration and competitiveness. But when the worldview of many is that these two are direct tradeoffs, such solutions won't be explored and found.

Citrus Dad

14-05-2015, 19:39

Some people are still pointing to "want one true winner" as a significant negative to the switch, granted that you didn't mention it there.

And there are so many other events to show uninformed people what we are about. At that stage few people actually care about the winners and awards and things they know nothing about. They are just amazed that this is something high school students do and that there are international teams at all.

I've had people interested by showing them the robot or even just talking to them. You don't need one big event to pull people in you need a year round multifaceted effort across many areas. And yes there is something spectacular to the energy of an event especially a world championship but do you still not come away from your regional tired with no voice covered in WD-40, red'n tacky grease, and buttons? I still think it's amazing we do that at all and so do a lot of new people. I'd hate to be a part of an organization that valued winning over that.

Because you suggested that the split championship would cause lack of motivation to help others. So do you value that work more than what you lose from splitting championships which does not directly affect said work? If you do than you won't quit. If what is lost by splitting championships is more important than you may. It's an old fashion cost/benefit analysis.

Those are two different tasks. How is the competition structure related to community enrichment other than the fact of their being a competition is why you may have started doing that work? Are you saying that splitting championships thus prevents that sort of work?

It comes across like anything not directly related to the competition being valuable to you is solely dependent on winning and how important the victory is. I wouldn't think that would be the case.

And why can't the two, not 100, and not ten world events both be valuable on their own? Your answer is lack of one champion and that's not enough to devalue the events significantly for most people.

I would say the motivations for the vast majority of FIRST teams remains unchanged. I would also contend that while the "1%" does frequently help the community a lot, there's plenty of the "99%" that do just as much for the community. Lest we forget the team best judged a role model for other teams to follow played a grand total of four playoff matches in four events this season.

While I don't support the split championship, the attitude that the elite somehow do more for the community than other teams and thus deserve to be catered to more than other teams is just plain wrong.

Similar, I don't like the attitude that because FIRST employs a sports-model that it is a sport and should do everything like sports. FIRST is more than a sport.

Let me start with a retort to both Jman4747 and Lil'Lavery that they have seen before in other threads where I've posted: Based on my 30 years of professional education and work experience, people do NOT do what they OUGHT to do just because we expect them to do so. They only do so on a consistent basis when we given them the correct INCENTIVES to do so. People do not voluntarily reduce their air pollution by driving less voluntarily; they only do so through a combination of higher gasoline prices and enforced automotive technologies. Charities know that their contributions will decrease dramatically if the charitable deduction is removed from the tax code. If you can provide real, not speculative, counterexamples, then I might accept your premise that elite teams will continue to compete and contribute at their current levels simply because they the community believes that they ought to.

But do we have to do it exactly like them? We have a competition and I think playing with the structure is a valid way to try to achieve our goals. Also our goals don't usually align with most other sports so I can see us not using the exact same system.

You do have a point. Informed individuals may have different opinions once they are informed. But the public isn't informed. I can say with very high confidence an uninformed person is more likely to be inspired by a big competition where the whole world goes to, rather than a competition where a part of the world goes to.

And then there are the people who think or pretend they are informed and know what they are talking about, but actually have no clue.

The majority of the population is the uninformed or the "pseudo-informed" These are the people we care about changing the program to inspire, not the ones who are already super informed and hooked.

BrennanB is on point. Again, Kamen's brilliant insight was "why fight what our cultural worships? Why not use that cultural pathway already blazed by someone else to promote STEM?

Some of our best marketing geniuses work in the sporting world. Did you know that Nike's "Just Do It" was started 27 years ago? Nike uses the success of the very best athletes to market to masses. They are HUGE dominant sponsors in most sports, and they are the dominant sporting goods company. Why would we think that FIRST has a better thought on how to reach the masses?

Remember the mission of FIRST is NOT to reach just the current team members or those who would go into STEM in any case. They are trying to bring a broader group into STEM. While you might say we are different sports, I don't see the rationale for why we should use a different marketing approach than sports. Why not use the most successful model and build on that?

An additional point that I've made before: We already have other organizations that promote STEM through less or non competitive activities. Why should FIRST move away from its unique and seemingly successful niche? Is there some type of encroachment that threatens the existence of FIRST that I'm not aware of? And even so, isn't our overall goal promotion of STEM and shouldn't we stand aside if someone else has a better widget?

I'm not seeing the compelling argument that says that FIRST should diverge from its current product; only that teams that use competition as motivation should accept a less motivational format that is somehow more inspirational in an unstated way. The counter argument seems to be that many would prefer to be at an event with (the same every year) half of the now less motivated elite teams rather than being at either an event with highly motivated elite teams plus an event with equally motivated not quite as elite teams. I'm not seeing why the former is more inspirational than the latter.

By putting less focus on competition (which is a direction of thinking this decision indicates) you alienate a portion of the community. This portion is the one doing most of the high level inspiration and training of the community, and losing even a percentage of them will have trickle down affects that lower the quality of all teams.

The general public wants competition and excitement. There is no reason an increase in competition has to lead to a decrease in sportsmanship (aka GP). By hinting that GP can only be maintained with competition being sub-servant sends the message to students that they can't be competitive AND have GP.

Adam is reiterating what I've already posted earlier here. The INSPIRATION that other teams get derives substantially from the COMPETITIVENESS that drives the elite teams. Do you remember the excitement last fall around Chezy Champs? My take was that there were many following it on CD who were not attending? Who put that on? The World Champion Cheesy Poofs. Do you think that they would have made the effort to gather those teams if they hadn't been inspired by their own success? Do you think that even the lowest placing team was inspired by that competition? I think someone needs to provide an example of how reducing 254's incentive for excellence improves the inspiration that other teams derive from 254's efforts.

In Michigan we have a similar format to two championships for FLL. Both teams address themselves as state Champs. And the only problem is the fact that only one team goes to the FIRST Championship. It doesn't make the competition any less competitive.

Also Imagine years down the road when there is a North North American Championship, a South South American Championship, a European Championship, a South American Championship, an East Asian Championship, a Pacific Championship, And a North African Championship. Then we will have a need for a "World Championship" but having more competitions doesn't take away from a competitive nature it only allows more people to be exposed to FIRST and encourage growth in STEM fields.

FLL is not an appropriate counterexample--it's essentially elementary children and the program is really parent driven. (BTW, this is why AYSO is so successful through age 12 and then participation drops precipitously.) The students are not the primary decision makers, unlike for FRC. In fact, I'm not quite sure why FLL even has a World "Championship". I think a Festival is perfectly appropriate for that age group.

And championsplit is not about creating continental championships (which would be inevitable.) FIRST HQ has not shown any indications that heading that direction is behind their decision, so I heavily discount that motive.

To steal the conclusion from the Mentor-Driven vs Student-Driven Team debate:
It depends on what works best for your team. YMMV.
It is my opinion that HQ is trying to find a solution that works the best for the most teams.
Some may feel alienated; some may disagree with aspects of the proposed solution; some may have 'better' ideas. But HQ is trying to work toward (what it believes is) the greater good, and I can respect that.

This is not about what is best for an individual team or what individual teams decide. We are working as a cooperative community across all teams, and the the larger point is that FIRST is trying to inspire the entire culture. (The Mentor v Student Led debate is only germane to individual teams that have already been formed.) And as a community, many of us are questioning if FIRST HQ understands what is best for the greater good. As members, we should not just stand back and leave what we think is a harmful decision be made by HQ--we're speaking out.

See my preface above. Your are asking teams to what they OUGHT to do, not what the community has given them the INCENTIVE to do. When those run at cross purposes, incentives will trump.

Which is more inspiring, owning any lamborghini, or:

Ike's story made me ask a question which I think demonstrates my point. Why does Dodge build the Viper, when it has already invented one of the most successful and wide selling passenger vehicle types, the mini-van? Simple answer: Dodge needs a hot singular, identifiable car to inspire through this imagery a desire to buy its mini-vans. The chain of inspiration may not be immediately obvious, but the auto marketing gurus, who are the other hugely successful marketers along with sports, have made that connection. Dodge probably makes almost no money on the Viper. (I'll bet it actually loses money.) But having a noticeable car attracts attention to the rest of its car line. Having a "World Champion" is FRC's Viper that helps it sell all of its new FRC rookie team mini vans.

Of all of my qualms with the championsplit, this is the biggest one. Many of the greatest mentors of the greatest teams are upset about the championsplit. That should scare everyone.

Any organization that alienates the top 1% of its contributors will not last long. My greatest fear is that the championsplit decision is indicative of more decisions like this to come which will push away the most important people in FRC. If I see that happening, I'm out, plain and simple. I have no interest in being part of an organization which does not value its most important members.

I'm afraid this could really happen if we lose the motivation for the elite teams. I've seen what those teams do in action. (If anyone thinks of including us in that group, understand that we're really late comers to this.) There is a chain of causation. It may not be obvious to you, but its there. Dean's great insight was seeing it in front of him. Let's not lose it.

BrennanB

14-05-2015, 19:58

FLL is not an appropriate counterexample--it's essentially elementary children and the program is really parent driven. (BTW, this is why AYSO is so successful through age 12 and then participation drops precipitously.) The students are not the primary decision makers, unlike for FRC. In fact, I'm not quite sure why FLL even has a World "Championship". I think a Festival is perfectly appropriate for that age group.

Because while the majority of FLL teams may not be run by students, The ones that actually make it to champs are largely student run (aside from administrative tasks) FLL's top level is comparable to some extent. The bottom level however is not.

jman4747

14-05-2015, 20:17

Let me start with a retort to both Jman4747 and Lil'Lavery

I will respond to the whole post but to save space I'll only quote the beginning to reference it.

I didn't say teams ought to do any thing. I don't care if they do or not but they did/do seem to want to do it and it is great work so how is splitting championships contrary to said work or a direct hindrance to it? Adam asked why did I link inspiration to championship structure and the answer is I didn't. Everyone saying lack of motivation at the top will hurt their other efforts suggested this.

I honestly don't care how good you do until it's time to make strategies and play matches. I'm not going to spend all my time comparing us to them. Just get the skills, get the knowledge, get the tools, build a robot and go play. Try to win as much as you can but don't get mad if it doesn't go your way.

Also don't act as if this is completely noncompetitive because then it will be, for you. I personalty will not quit or become "demotivated" if elite teams actually just started leaving. All that is is quitting because you can't be the only winner. We are builders not buyers here. I don't need to see the viper just show me the track and give me a budget. When my car is on the start line next to it I'll worry about it.

Lil' Lavery

14-05-2015, 20:32

Let me start with a retort to both Jman4747 and Lil'Lavery that they have seen before in other threads where I've posted: Based on my 30 years of professional education and work experience, people do NOT do what they OUGHT to do just because we expect them to do so. They only do so on a consistent basis when we given them the correct INCENTIVES to do so. People do not voluntarily reduce their air pollution by driving less voluntarily; they only do so through a combination of higher gasoline prices and enforced automotive technologies. Charities know that their contributions will decrease dramatically if the charitable deduction is removed from the tax code. If you can provide real, not speculative, counterexamples, then I might accept your premise that elite teams will continue to compete and contribute at their current levels simply because they the community believes that they ought to.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment.

gblake

14-05-2015, 21:14

Folks,

The title (and presumably the proper central topic) of this thread is "ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective".

The title is not "Why I love/Hate the Championsplit Plan", or "Wild Speculation About the Future Behavior of Thousands of People, Based on Little More Than the Various Posters' Narrow/Individual Life Experiences".

Could we try to cleave a little more closely to the topic, please? Perhaps include some actual historical perspectives in our posts? ;)

Blake
PS: Yes, the snark is on purpose. Much more is deserved (I probably deserve a little bit of it for my post made a few days ago), but attempting to preserve a shred of graciousness (and the approval of at least one of my Grandmothers) limited me to what I wrote.

waialua359

14-05-2015, 21:21

I will respond to the whole post but to save space I'll only quote the beginning to reference it.

I didn't say teams ought to do any thing. I don't care if they do or not but they did/do seem to want to do it and it is great work so how is splitting championships contrary to said work or a direct hindrance to it? Adam asked why did I link inspiration to championship structure and the answer is I didn't. Everyone saying lack of motivation at the top will hurt their other efforts suggested this.

I honestly don't care how good you do until it's time to make strategies and play matches. I'm not going to spend all my time comparing us to them. Just get the skills, get the knowledge, get the tools, build a robot and go play. Try to win as much as you can but don't get mad if it doesn't go your way.

Also don't act as if this is completely noncompetitive because then it will be, for you. I personalty will not quit or become "demotivated" if elite teams actually just started leaving. All that is is quitting because you can't be the only winner. We are builders not buyers here. I don't need to see the viper just show me the track and give me a budget. When my car is on the start line next to it I'll worry about it.
While this may be your sentiment, its not one I would personally agree with.
Companies like AndyMark, VEXPro, BaneBots, and many others have catered to what teams are looking for. Many of what teams want are based on what previous inspirational and trendsetting teams have done in the past.
When I look at robot designs from 10 years ago, what was rare and advantageous for elite teams back then are common today.
If we expect FIRST to grow as a program, the inspirational designs have to grow as well.

connor.worley

14-05-2015, 21:30

Teams have avoided certain regionals in the past because of bad experience/reputation/etc.

Honest question: what's keeping teams that are competitive in both FIRST and VEX from picking VEX worlds every time? Because on paper I think VEX is going to deliver the better event.

David Lame

14-05-2015, 23:29

Someone noted earlier that the two sides are so far apart that they aren't even really arguing with each other. It's true. A lot of people can't even understand what the other side is saying, it seems.

So before I go on to respond to an earlier post, I'm going to start by saying that I don't have a really strong feeling on either side. As First grows, and I think it could easily double in size in the United States, and probably grow by a factor of 10, the current Championship model is unsustainable. Something has to change. But what?

Recognizing that something has to change, one possible way to change it is to give up a world championship and go to multiple championships of smaller portions of the world. For those who absolutely hate the end of the world championship, try to work it out in such a way that lots of people could attend, and that teams wouldn't have to miss a whole heck of a lot of school, and cost a heck of a lot of money.

It's possible to make it happen, but it isn't easy, and there are tradeoffs to every solution.

Now, though, to a response that tends to favor the other side, the "one championship" side.

And why can't the two, not 100, and not ten world events both be valuable on their own? Your answer is lack of one champion and that's not enough to devalue the events significantly for most people.

I disagree. In fact, it's enough to devalue the event significantly for almost everyone.

The majority of people in the world don't know what First Robotics is. The split won't affect very many of those people. A few more might see it because their local school's team is going, but I think the media coverage of two very big events will be less than a single big event that has "world championship" in the name.

For those who know about First, but don't participate, World Championship is a very powerful term. An event that is just as big, but not the World Championship, isn't as "valuable". More people will watch a World Championship than a very big regional championship.

For those who attend, attending a World Championship is more "valuable" than attending a regional championship, no matter how big the region nor how many teams are in attendance. This is especially true of teams travelling a long way. I predict that the split championships will drastically reduce international participation. Do you think teams will travel all the way from Australia to attend anything less than a World Championship? I guess we'll find out.

For those who aspire to attend, it's a bigger deal, even if they don't make it. Would the Olympics be more inspirational (and yes I consider those games inspirational), if there were two of them, each handing out gold medals? I don't think so.

For those who never make it past a district competition, which event is more valuable? Most people want to feel like they are a part of something big. Something grand. The mere existence of a World Championship lends a certain gravitas to all levels of competition.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the only people for whom the event will not be devalued are a small number of teams who do not go the the current champs because of the travel cost, but who would go to one if it were closer. That's a non-zero number of teams, but not a lot.

As for the characterization of the "one championship" side of the argument as people as being the "one champion" side of the argument, it is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst a straw man. I cringed when the survey from the leadership had a whole lot of "what's valuable" questions. None of them addressed what I think is really valuable, but they did have a question about "a competition to pick the best robots". I cringed because it showed that even after the controversy started swelling, it was clear they didn't get it.

The FRC World Championship, as it exists today, doesn't pick the best robots. Everyone knows that and almost no one cares. The alliance system, the serpentine alliance picking system, the random assignment into divisions at championship, these all conspire to make sure that it is NOT the best robots that take home the banners. And that's ok. Indeed, it's good. It creates a very unique system that has its own set of challenges, and tensions, and points of excitement, and yet still culminates in a single, unique, climactic moment where three teams emerge victorious. It happens through hard work, genius, and a whole lot of dumb luck, and everyone knows it, but by gum there is one point in time where everyone knows that the clock is going to tick down to zero and one alliance will emerge as the undisputed, number one, set of teams in the whole darned world.

It's not about finding one true champion, but it is about creating that one magical moment.

David Lame

14-05-2015, 23:31

cadandcookies

14-05-2015, 23:48

Honest question: what's keeping teams that are competitive in both FIRST and VEX from picking VEX worlds every time? Because on paper I think VEX is going to deliver the better event.

Nothing. You have a responsibility to your team to provide the best experience possible, and if you don't believe FIRST of FIRST events are the way to do that in your community then you should be going elsewhere. I for one would never fault someone for doing what they believe is right for their community, even if I disagree.

I can't comment on the experience of FIRST Championships versus VEX Championships because I've never had a chance to go to the VEX Championships (though I hope to visit someday!), but I've never had a "bad" experience at a FIRST Championship-- I've had things that irritated me, annoyed me, or made me angry, but on the whole they tend to be very well run and put together.

EricH

14-05-2015, 23:57

All right. If it sounds like the last post puts me pretty firmly in the "one championship" side, that's a fair assessment. That's where my heart is.

My head, though, recognizes that it's not that easy. I can see some advantages to the split as well. It's a difficult tradeoff. But on an emotional level, I want that magic moment.

Yep, that's about how I feel, too.

Blake is pretty much on point with the reason I started this thread. I figured that, with all the "we need to do this" and "we need to do that", it would be a good idea to dig deeper into WHY this or that needs to be done. Sometimes, it's a lot easier to get someone to move X direction if WHY is answered first (and engineers are prime "culprits", if I can use that term--I acknowledge being guilty, and I'll acknowledge answering the question before it comes up on occasion). And in this case, answering that WHY question involves going back and looking at where we've come from.

So, back to the root of the question at hand.

For better or worse, we have 2 championships. At least in theory, this was made to increase inspiration. Theory vs. reality aside, we've got some interesting decisions ahead--either HQ, or us as teams, or even individuals.

I'd like to point out, once again, that for this to work ideally:
--Neither half of championship should suffer in the Inspiration department.
--Neither half of championship should suffer in the Recognition department.
--A single World Champion Alliance is crowned.
--25% of FRC teams should be in attendance at one or the other half of championship (let's give or take 5% here)--this part will need to be somewhat scalable.
--And, we still need to figure out what to do with Chairman's. (This kind of follows from the first two points--still, it's best to call it out separately.)

Now, I know that ideal and non-ideal cases aren't the same. I don't see any way the status quo can be maintained, honestly, unless we give up the 25% number (which HQ may eventually figure out isn't going to work well, but still...). But that means cancelling contracts.

So: How do we accomplish that nice little list of objectives that may (or may not) be incompatible with each other, or with teams' objectives?* And, how do we do it with minimal losses of teams, volunteers, or other necessary components of this culture-change equation?

*For the record, I don't think they're incompatible with each other. But figuring out a way to keep them not incompatible is the really fun part.

(I also recall, from the town hall transcripts etc., that this isn't the way it was "supposed to" work. In FIRST's eyes back in 2011, we'd all be in districts by now, and this whole split wouldn't be necessary. But, we're all slow adopters (OK, MI, MAR, NE, PNW, and IN get a pass on that one), so we get the split. Let's try to make it a temporary one, OK?)

Caleb Sykes

15-05-2015, 00:03

But, we're all slow adopters (OK, MI, MAR, NE, PNW, and IN get a pass on that one), so we get the split. Let's try to make it a temporary one, OK?)

I just spent a good minute trying to understand why Oklahoma should get a pass. But it's Okay because I just figured out what I was missing.

popnbrown

15-05-2015, 00:35

Apologies, EricH. I know you're trying to draw the conversation to a positive conclusion...I couldn't resist.

They only do so on a consistent basis when we given them the correct INCENTIVES to do so.

I'm likely naive and ideal, but I think this is too blanket of a statement. Perhaps a true generalization but not a fair one. I think some people, especially many of us here, do things not for a very clear and understood incentive. Perhaps some of us got involved because of a clear incentive but it is not why we continue to be involved.

For example: Teams that have won World Chairman's continue to do the work of a role model FRC team, even though they do not have the chance to win the award for another 5 years. Why is this?

An additional point that I've made before: We already have other organizations that promote STEM through less or non competitive activities.

In addition to what you've said above and previously, I think you're implying that FIRST's most unique feature is it's competitive feature. I politely disagree, it is not what drew me (robots were just cool..and all my friends did it) and it is not what continues to draw me (I'm just trying to get my students to write good e-mails :D) to FIRST.

In my experience, Science Olympiad was more competitive than FIRST was.

I can understand it's what attracts certain people, but it is not universal.

iVanDuzer

15-05-2015, 02:34

Folks,

Could we try to cleave a little more closely to the topic, please? Perhaps include some actual historical perspectives in our posts? ;)

I would say the motivations for the vast majority of FIRST teams remains unchanged. I would also contend that while the "1%" does frequently help the community a lot, there's plenty of the "99%" that do just as much for the community. Lest we forget the team best judged a role model for other teams to follow played a grand total of four playoff matches in four events this season.

Historically ( ;) ), FIRST did something pretty new this year, because in general, the Hall of Fame Teams are perennial competition winners and (largely) would have qualified for the World Championships based on on-field merit alone.

The following Hall of Fame teams would have qualified based on performances at Regionals or Districts every year since 2012:
1114, 359, 341*, 842**, 67, 254.

The following are also Hall of Fame teams that have put up very strong showings in recent years:
27***, 1538, 236, 365.

And then we have 111, who I have to include here because they were an undeniable powerhouse back when they won Chairman's in 2006.

So yes, that's every single Hall of Fame team stretching back to 2005 that has achieved at least moderate levels of on-field success. This seems to point towards what many others (especially CitrusDad and AdamHeard) have been saying: the "top 1%" (or maybe consistently top 10%) of FRC teams are the most inspirational and impactful, and are the best at growing FRC.

(That's not to say that the 99% don't pull their weight - they do. But generally, FIRST has seemingly paired on-field accomplishments with the Chairman's Award, at least at the highest level. What does this say about splitting the on-field competition, and its possible effect on motivation and inspiration?)

* Would have missed this season but will give them a pass after years of dominating MAR
** Also would have missed this year despite previous dominance over Arizona stretching back to 2011
*** Would have made the first list but they didn't quite make it after needing the Chairman's Award to qualify in 2012

For example: Teams that have won World Chairman's continue to do the work of a role model FRC team, even though they do not have the chance to win the award for another 5 years. Why is this?

Because Culture is incredibly hard to change (see FIRST's every effort to become "LOUD", and still have such little media / external support (in terms of awareness from people / corporations not involved in FIRST)). And these teams have changed their team culture, so it's doomed to stay that way.

Having had the incredible opportunity and experiences of working closely with a Hall of Fame team, it's a total top-down thing. They changed their culture to one of success and Gracious Professionalism, and now new members learn the same attitudes from the veterans and mentors. Rookies get automatically assimilated and upgraded with these values. Yes, I just likened all the Hall of Fame teams to Cybermen.

This is incredibly heartwarming for me, because it says that inspiring teams can't stop being inspiring (unless of course, they just stop existing). But, in general (speaking as someone currently working in Marketing), CitrusDad is right: people need incentives to do stuff. There will always be the Trailblazers, who do cool stuff just because, but the common adopter needs a little poke here and there.

________________________________________

I do want to take this time to thank EricH, Dr. Joe, and many, many others who have chimed in regarding their experiences and /or knowledge of the Early Days of FRC. I'm a firm believer of knowing where you came from in order to know where you're going, and I find these sorts of history lessons invaluable. So, kudos.

Michael Corsetto

15-05-2015, 03:17

Could we try to cleave a little more closely to the topic, please? Perhaps include some actual historical perspectives in our posts?

http://i.imgur.com/YlWlegh.png

dodar

15-05-2015, 03:48

http://i.imgur.com/YlWlegh.png

You should have made a big cardboard cutout of this and brought it as your presentation to the Town Hall Meeting.

IKE

15-05-2015, 06:48

http://i.imgur.com/YlWlegh.png

EDIT: Mike's graph is correct, but it gets interesting if you compare number of World Champions year to year....

Problem is, that is not an accurate figure. It would be 1 until alliances started. Then 2 plus a backup if I remember correctly. In 2001 I think it was 4, then in 2002 it went back to 2+1 until alliances went to 3 in 2005. It stayed that way until 2014 when alliances picked their own backup so 2014 and 2015 should be 4. 2017 will likely be 6 or 8.... If you talk to the "old timers" there was a contingent at each of those changes that thought the changed would "ruin the FRC experience".
At least we are back to covering history.

Steven Smith

15-05-2015, 07:52

World Championships, not Champions.

Basel A

15-05-2015, 08:44

World Championships, not Champions.

Which is more relevant? I'll let you be the judge.

Personally I'm mostly peeved about not getting to compete at an event with 254 and 1114. Both for me and for my students. Even my least engaged students were asking me "How are 254 and 1114 doing? When do they play? I want to watch 254 and 1114 play." Why do they have to choose? Or worse, not even get to choose (not that I mind 1114).

But then I think about it a bit more. A championship with all of the best teams will be limited in size, probably around where the current championship is, 600 teams. FRC in Michigan is going to keep growing. Quite possibly we soon wouldn't be able to compete at that championship because we're not good enough. That would suck.* Maybe I can settle for just one of 254 or 1114.

Maybe this is a decent compromise. Maybe it's not. I go back and forth.

*Don't say "they maybe you should do [whatever] to get better." That's a solution for one team, but if everybody gets better, it's the same situation. A smaller % of teams get to be at the united championship.

Steven Smith

15-05-2015, 08:59

Which is more relevant? I'll let you be the judge.

Personally I'm mostly peeved about not getting to compete at an event with 254 and 1114. Both for me and for my students. Even my least engaged students were asking me "How are 254 and 1114 doing? When do they play? I want to watch 254 and 1114 play." Why do they have to choose? Or worse, not even get to choose (not that I mind 1114).

But then I think about it a bit more. A championship with all of the best teams will be limited in size, probably around where the current championship is, 600 teams. FRC in Michigan is going to keep growing. Quite possibly we soon wouldn't be able to compete at that championship because we're not good enough. That would suck.* Maybe I can settle for just one of 254 or 1114.

Maybe this is a decent compromise. Maybe it's not. I go back and forth.

*Don't say "they maybe you should do [whatever] to get better." That's a solution for one team, but if everybody gets better, it's the same situation. A smaller % of teams get to be at the united championship.

Sorry answering on my phone this morning, and was both a little briefer and forgot to hit Quote instead of reply.

I was responding the post before mine from IKE:
Problem is, that is not an accurate figure. It would be 1 until alliances started. Then 2 plus a backup if I remember correctly.

I was just noting that the Y axis on the graph was number of world championships, not world champions.

IKE

15-05-2015, 10:07

World Championships, not Champions.

That is what I get for reading graphs on a phone.... I think this officially makes me an old man....

Citrus Dad

15-05-2015, 12:16

Also don't act as if this is completely noncompetitive because then it will be, for you. I personalty will not quit or become "demotivated" if elite teams actually just started leaving. All that is is quitting because you can't be the only winner. We are builders not buyers here. I don't need to see the viper just show me the track and give me a budget. When my car is on the start line next to it I'll worry about it.

Your setting up strawmen. This is not a dichotomous choice of "fully" competitive and "non" competitive. This is a matter of degree. And that matter of degree matters.

And this isn't about your personal motivation--this is about motivating a large segment of the student population. While you are a builder, the fact is that FIRST's target audience--students who are not yet in STEM activities--are the "buyers." So the Viper analogy holds when focusing on the vision statement that was quoted.

Drawing anecdotes from our personal experience isn't necessarily relevant--you need to conduct a large survey of students across the board and assess how their motivations will change or provide a much more general source of information to support your position. And you need to demonstrate that reducing the motivation for the elite teams (which seems pretty well documented on CD) won't have a cascade effect through the FRC community. I know that those are all big burdens, but personal assertions carry little weight. (It's why I have avoided making those sorts of claiims in my posts. I have only referred to what has happened in the last couple of weeks to our team because I think its a unique perspective and is not speculative in any way.) We need to see some form of empirical evidence.

I'm thinking that Adam's point that we're arguing past each other might be revealed by this conversation. I see JM4707 and Lil'Lavery referring to the motivation on their own individual teams. On the other hand, I and many others are looking beyond existing teams to the broader society and how this affects the motivation to join FRC. I see a hierarchy of FIRST's mission, which looks like this:

1) Attracting new students who are only marginally interested in STEM using the sports metaphor.
2) Once students have joined a team, providing a motivational experience so that they continue to participate in FRC.
3) Providing a technical engineering challenge to the most motivated students that further motivates them and trains them in specific skills.
4) Providing a competitive challenge to students motivated by achieving excellence. That competitive challenge becomes the culturally visible highlight that leads back to 1) attracting new students.

Citrus Dad

15-05-2015, 12:26

Someone noted earlier that the two sides are so far apart that they aren't even really arguing with each other. It's true. A lot of people can't even understand what the other side is saying, it seems.

The alliance system, the serpentine alliance picking system, the random assignment into divisions at championship, these all conspire to make sure that it is NOT the best robots that take home the banners. And that's ok. Indeed, it's good. It creates a very unique system that has its own set of challenges, and tensions, and points of excitement, and yet still culminates in a single, unique, climactic moment where three teams emerge victorious.

It's not about finding one true champion, but it is about creating that one magical moment.

Dave, your post is dead on point. However, I have one mild correction that I can support with our own experience--in 2014 the best robot did lead the championship alliance. Try as we might in 3 different competitions and again at Waterloo (as well as at Chezy Champs), 254 proved they were the best robot in the world. :yikes: But your right that outcome rarely holds.

Knufire

15-05-2015, 12:40

Dave, your post is dead on point. However, I have one mild correction that I can support with our own experience--in 2014 the best robot did lead the championship alliance. Try as we might in 3 different competitions and again at Waterloo (as well as at Chezy Champs), 254 proved they were the best robot in the world. :yikes: But your right that outcome rarely holds.

And as you found out this year, the alliance that generally wins the championship is the competitive alliance that got a steal of a 3rd robot. But that's for a completely different thread. :)

Citrus Dad

15-05-2015, 13:00

I'm likely naive and ideal, but I think this is too blanket of a statement. Perhaps a true generalization but not a fair one. I think some people, especially many of us here, do things not for a very clear and understood incentive. Perhaps some of us got involved because of a clear incentive but it is not why we continue to be involved.

For example: Teams that have won World Chairman's continue to do the work of a role model FRC team, even though they do not have the chance to win the award for another 5 years. Why is this?

In addition to what you've said above and previously, I think you're implying that FIRST's most unique feature is it's competitive feature. I politely disagree, it is not what drew me (robots were just cool..and all my friends did it) and it is not what continues to draw me (I'm just trying to get my students to write good e-mails :D) to FIRST.

In my experience, Science Olympiad was more competitive than FIRST was.

I can understand it's what attracts certain people, but it is not universal.

My statement about incentives is pretty much universally true. While social morales and ethics seem to arise from some "unknown" source, economists have pretty much worked through the incentive structures that motivate them. (Yes, sociologists will hate that I said this.) In addition, once the incentive has worked its magic (e.g. winning Chairmans) the cultural inertia (which is an incentive in itself--often called "status quo bias") keeps that effort going. Plus those teams know that in 5 years they can compete for Chairmans again.

FIRST's uniqueness is not in its competitiveness. There are many (most?) STEM promotion activities are competitive in some way. The uniqueness is the on-field competition which copies the sports metaphor, down to the large number of spectators/participants in the stands and the live commentary. The FTC/VEX scale robots are hard to see from the first level stands in Edward Jones Stadium, much less the third tier. It's that "stadium stage" which is truly unique. And that only occurs when there is a dramatic championship on the line, as David wrote about.

And the attraction need not be universal--it only needs to attract a sufficiently large number of students to be effective and justified. Almost certainly you would be in a STEM activity of some type--you're not FIRST's target audience. Their target audience is our 2013 team captain who wanted to be a fashion designer and saw all of this excitement so she joined the team. She's now a mechanical engineering student. Or 1323's captain who switched from the cheerleading squad at Madera HS.

Or let's talk about the ultimate motivation story. Karthik in his talk at Champs told about how he first refused to join the robotics team, but then the mentor appealed to Karthik's love of sports and how similar FRC is to sports. I don't think anyone will dispute the effect Karthik has on the inspiration for FRC teams. The strongest advocates for championsplit have argued that having more teams able to see elite teams like 1114 is the prime rationale for the restructuring. Where would 1114 be without Karthik? Why would we want to create a system that reduces the motivation for Karthik to even join FRC? Are we going to lose the next Karthik by deemphasizing the sports metaphor?

Citrus Dad

15-05-2015, 13:08

Which is more relevant? I'll let you be the judge.

Personally I'm mostly peeved about not getting to compete at an event with 254 and 1114. Both for me and for my students. Even my least engaged students were asking me "How are 254 and 1114 doing? When do they play? I want to watch 254 and 1114 play." Why do they have to choose? Or worse, not even get to choose (not that I mind 1114).

But then I think about it a bit more. A championship with all of the best teams will be limited in size, probably around where the current championship is, 600 teams. FRC in Michigan is going to keep growing. Quite possibly we soon wouldn't be able to compete at that championship because we're not good enough. That would suck.* Maybe I can settle for just one of 254 or 1114.

Maybe this is a decent compromise. Maybe it's not. I go back and forth.

*Don't say "they maybe you should do [whatever] to get better." That's a solution for one team, but if everybody gets better, it's the same situation. A smaller % of teams get to be at the united championship.

In this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137096) there are a number of proposals (which I summarized in another post here) that maintain the 800 team format but still crown a single on-field champion (and other ideas that allocate other awards between the 2 events.) We can still achieve FIRST's goals and keep what's essential to FRC's success.

Citrus Dad

15-05-2015, 13:11

And as you found out this year, the alliance that generally wins the championship is the competitive alliance that got a steal of a 3rd robot. But that's for a completely different thread. :)

Yes, we are very good at getting carried by our alliance mates! ;) Which is why FRC is about more than just building robots.

popnbrown

15-05-2015, 13:21

And these teams have changed their team culture, so it's doomed to stay that way.

They changed their culture to one of success and Gracious Professionalism, and now new members learn the same attitudes from the veterans and mentors. Rookies get automatically assimilated and upgraded with these values.

So my point was that my only conclusion regarding incentives is that for these students to be doing what they do is, if they did not, they would not be part of that team. The expectations of these students are well beyond those of building a robot and competing.

But, in general (speaking as someone currently working in Marketing), CitrusDad is right: people need incentives to do stuff. There will always be the Trailblazers, who do cool stuff just because, but the common adopter needs a little poke here and there.

Why should the poke just be winning the competition or being the best robot builders? Why can't we emulate the poke to be something greater, to be what the same as those amazing HoF teams which you mention above?

I think Adam mentioned this, but I don't see the motivation to win as being contrary to the end goals of FIRST. I just think it's limiting the potential of what can be achieved.

Taylor

15-05-2015, 13:34

Honest question: what's keeping teams that are competitive in both FIRST and VEX from picking VEX worlds every time? Because on paper I think VEX is going to deliver the better event.
For me, personally: size.
If I go to the FRC world championship event, I get to sit with thousands of my friends and see robots.
If I go to the VEX world championship event, I get to sit with thousands of my friends and see a screen showing robots.

Lil' Lavery

15-05-2015, 14:08

Historically ( ;) ), FIRST did something pretty new this year, because in general, the Hall of Fame Teams are perennial competition winners and (largely) would have qualified for the World Championships based on on-field merit alone.

The following Hall of Fame teams would have qualified based on performances at Regionals or Districts every year since 2012:
1114, 359, 341*, 842**, 67, 254.

The following are also Hall of Fame teams that have put up very strong showings in recent years:
27***, 1538, 236, 365.

And then we have 111, who I have to include here because they were an undeniable powerhouse back when they won Chairman's in 2006.

So yes, that's every single Hall of Fame team stretching back to 2005 that has achieved at least moderate levels of on-field success. This seems to point towards what many others (especially CitrusDad and AdamHeard) have been saying: the "top 1%" (or maybe consistently top 10%) of FRC teams are the most inspirational and impactful, and are the best at growing FRC.

(That's not to say that the 99% don't pull their weight - they do. But generally, FIRST has seemingly paired on-field accomplishments with the Chairman's Award, at least at the highest level. What does this say about splitting the on-field competition, and its possible effect on motivation and inspiration?)

* Would have missed this season but will give them a pass after years of dominating MAR
** Also would have missed this year despite previous dominance over Arizona stretching back to 2011
*** Would have made the first list but they didn't quite make it after needing the Chairman's Award to qualify in 2012

You're missing the point here. I'm not arguing that the elite teams aren't, in large, influential off the field as well. What I'm arguing against is the mentality that many have taken in these debates. The mentality that the high end teams both inspire more than other teams, and the implication that as a result their desires should trump those of other parties. I both reject the premise (there are countless teams that are not "elite" that are among the cultural leaders in FIRST) and the implication. Even if the elite teams were doing more to inspire than others, it doesn't automatically mean that their whims trump those of FIRST's organizational demands or other teams. Elite teams should not necessarily have a veto power over how Championship is held, regardless of how certain individuals feel about the incentives it lays forth. While I know it's not intended be to arrogant, this attitude certainly comes off as arrogant. It reads like "We're really good at this, we know what's best for everyone!" Overall, I simply reject the concept that trickle-down inspiration is the only way to go.

To frame this in a historical perspective, this is not the first time that prominent teams and mentors have been upset about change coming to FRC. Everything from changes in the FRC control system, changes in the platform used for FTC, the introduction of the serpentine draft, the introduction of alliances, the introduction of districts, specific regions shifting to a district model, and even previous changes to the Championship qualification structure have drawn the ire of some of the high profile and highly successful members of our community. Yet the vast majority of them have remained intact in their commitment to the goals of FIRST. People have cried "Doom!" before, but the end has yet to come. That doesn't mean that they're wrong in this case, but rather than there are plenty of other perspectives to be considered here.

jman4747

15-05-2015, 14:11

Drawing anecdotes from our personal experience isn't necessarily relevant

But don't you? I can't do a survey that large. I can and have interacted with people in my immediate community and that's what I will comment on. If that isn't a valid analysis of outsider opinion for you than don't read it. A lot of students are and want to be builders. How does selling some other team in another state or country help my team or community? I'd much rather recount our drive and efforts and the fun involved with building our robots and competing at FIRST events.

You are assuming most everyone is motivated by winning and whatever else you are when clearly we and others we have talked to exist.

iVanDuzer

15-05-2015, 16:02

You're missing the point here. I'm not arguing that the elite teams aren't, in large, influential off the field as well. What I'm arguing against is the mentality that many have taken in these debates.

You're right, I did miss the point of your post. I was more pointing out that, while the Wolverines aren't a traditional powerhouse team, many if not most of the Hall of Fame teams are.

However, what I'm still a touch irked by is the fact that FIRST did not make any attempt to communicate with these teams before making a huge decision like this. Historically, they haven't in the past, either, but maybe they should start. I never suggested a "veto" process where top teams can dictate what happens to the program, and while I believe that there are many roads to inspire students and mentors alike, I also believe that we cannot ignore the not-insignificant "trickle down" inspiration model that these teams represent.

I 100% believe that if FIRST had asked these teams what they thought of the Championsplit, they would have gotten feedback that considered both the competitive and the inspirational implications of the decision. Instead, we have a contrasting message where FIRST has traditionally given their Highest Honour to competitive (if not dominant) teams, and yet created a system that (at least initially) nerfs the competitive aspects of the program. Likewise, I would like to think that if FIRST informed the then-Hall of Fame teams about the adoption of alliances, they would have seen the point about increasing the coopertative aspects of FIRST (which I believe are one of the main hallmarks of the program).

Why should the poke just be winning the competition or being the best robot builders? Why can't we emulate the poke to be something greater, to be what the same as those amazing HoF teams which you mention above?

This "poke" for non-robot-centric teams already exists -- it's called the Chairman's Award. The Chairman's Award uses the same "bait and switch" that the robot uses: you get lured in with a possible shiny trophy, and along the way you change a slice of the world.

Is this true for every team? Definitely not. But in my experience, if you ask the teams that are perennial contenders for the Chairman's Award why they started to run all these programs, why they started to develop these resources, and why they started to work so hard at spreading STEM, you'll mostly get the answer "To win the Chairman's Award."

I think Adam mentioned this, but I don't see the motivation to win as being contrary to the end goals of FIRST. I just think it's limiting the potential of what can be achieved.

And I am of the personal opinion that competition turns into motivation which turns into success which turns into inspiration. This isn't a model that works for every team, obviously.

Kevin Leonard

15-05-2015, 16:37

/snip/
Is this true for every team? Definitely not. But in my experience, if you ask the teams that are perennial contenders for the Chairman's Award why they started to run all these programs, why they started to develop these resources, and why they started to work so hard at spreading STEM, you'll mostly get the answer "To win the Chairman's Award."
/snip/

I agree with most of your post, but not necessarily this little section.
Anyone I've talked to on a Hall of Fame or Chairman's team claims that their drive wasn't "to win an award", but more to change the culture of their community, team, and school.
The award for most is just a bonus.

waialua359

15-05-2015, 16:51

I agree with most of your post, but not necessarily this little section.
Anyone I've talked to on a Hall of Fame or Chairman's team claims that their drive wasn't "to win an award", but more to change the culture of their community, team, and school.
The award for most is just a bonus.
Anyone that asks me about applying for Chairman's Award has always gotten the same response from me:

To do what we've always done, striving to be better, helping others where we can, and making a difference for our current crop of students/school/community.
One of the most daunting tasks is trying to raise money to compete in FIRST. Most teams dont start their year saying lets plan on going to Hawaii 4-5 times per year while doing Robotics. That's us, just the other way around.
We do what we do, in order to survive and receive the funding support we need in order to compete. This in turn allows us to do what I mentioned above. The bonus is we all enjoy Robotics.

Citrus Dad

15-05-2015, 17:58

So my point was that my only conclusion regarding incentives is that for these students to be doing what they do is, if they did not, they would not be part of that team. The expectations of these students are well beyond those of building a robot and competing.

Why should the poke just be winning the competition or being the best robot builders? Why can't we emulate the poke to be something greater, to be what the same as those amazing HoF teams which you mention above?

I think Adam mentioned this, but I don't see the motivation to win as being contrary to the end goals of FIRST. I just think it's limiting the potential of what can be achieved.

Your confusing the end results of what is a tremendous program with what lures students to the program and what are the underlying incentives that drive teams. The beauty of FIRST is that students don't realize they are working hard at learning while they are having fun. Why are they having fun? Because they are in a COMPETITION. Yes, there a few students who are just into the engineering and never see the competition, but they are in the minority. But the bottom line is that the students don't know that they are going to gain all of this experience beyond building robots to compete until they've been on a team a while. And it's the maintaining that motivation from competition through the sports metaphor that we're most concerned about.

But I'm interested in what your vision is of finding motivation beyond the competition poke. My biggest question once you articulate that is how you use it to recruit new students from beyond the boundaries of FIRST and those already with inherent interest in STEM? If you can clearly articulate that vision and how it might be implemented then we can discuss that. I will begin, however, "offering more championship slots" is not a vision and has not be adequately linked to a cause and effect that reaches the target audience I've described.

If you want to both promote STEM and take on motivations in Western culture, that's too much to ask of FIRST. I must part ways with you on that. FIRST has a singular mission. Adding a second one muddies that too much.

You're missing the point here. I'm not arguing that the elite teams aren't, in large, influential off the field as well. What I'm arguing against is the mentality that many have taken in these debates. The mentality that the high end teams both inspire more than other teams, and the implication that as a result their desires should trump those of other parties. I both reject the premise (there are countless teams that are not "elite" that are among the cultural leaders in FIRST) and the implication. Even if the elite teams were doing more to inspire than others, it doesn't automatically mean that their whims trump those of FIRST's organizational demands or other teams. Elite teams should not necessarily have a veto power over how Championship is held, regardless of how certain individuals feel about the incentives it lays forth. While I know it's not intended be to arrogant, this attitude certainly comes off as arrogant. It reads like "We're really good at this, we know what's best for everyone!" Overall, I simply reject the concept that trickle-down inspiration is the only way to go.

...Yet the vast majority of them have remained intact in their commitment to the goals of FIRST. People have cried "Doom!" before, but the end has yet to come. That doesn't mean that they're wrong in this case, but rather than there are plenty of other perspectives to be considered here.

Let's start with the justification voiced by many in other threads for why the championsplit should have coequal fields rather than tiered qualification (to paraphrase): The top elite teams inspire other teams and should other teams at the 2 events should have an equal chance of interacting with those inspiring teams. Therefore one event should not be allowed to have a concentration of elite teams. Now those same elite teams are in fact NOT more inspiring and therefore deserve no special treatment. If that's the case, then you should have no problem if the championships in fact do have a tiered qualification system so that the top 400 go to one event and the next 400 go to other. Your position is inconsistent if you both opposed tiered events AND argue that elite teams are not anymore inspirational.

Regardless, you are missing my point--this isn't about catering to elite teams. My point is that FIRST needs the celebrity of elite teams in the sports metaphor to attract students from the broader society. No one has yet proposed a workable alternative model that will be as successful as the sports metaphor to reach widely across our society. Remember Kamen's goal is to change the culture so that scientists and engineers gain wider recognition and students aspire to be like them. You may not remember this ad campaign, but in the 1980s there was a hugely successful ad campaign with Michael Jordan who's pitch line was "Be like Mike." And the implication was obvious--emulate a celebrity pro athlete. This is a fundamental truth of marketing. You may not like marketing truths imply about us, but they are what they are.

So it's not about elite teams trying to "trump" HQs decision; it's about the usefulness of elite teams for promoting the mission of FIRST. Every successful sport needs its elite celebrities. In my favorite sport, track & field, this has become a real problem because too many of the celebrity athletes disappear in non-Olympic years. The sport is now heavily dependent on Usain Bolt, and he was gone last year so interest dropped significantly. In 1960, 80,000 spectators showed up for the US-USSR dual meet at Stanford. This year other than the Prefontaine meet in Eugene (about 13,000), no meet will draw more than 10,000 spectators and most less than 5,000. The elite track athletes now avoid meeting each other because the current incentives tell them to do so. I certainly want FIRST to avoid the fate of U.S. track & field.

Finally, I would say that the elite teams have stuck around because there has always been a unified championship to pursue. And the fact is that the other changes have often made the competition better. But now we're looking at a truly fundamental change. How will elite teams respond? And what if FIRST also designs games that have many features of this year's game? If those 2 factors happened in combination, you would start to see the mentors who drive those teams start to drift away.

But don't you? I can't do a survey that large. I can and have interacted with people in my immediate community and that's what I will comment on. If that isn't a valid analysis of outsider opinion for you than don't read it. A lot of students are and want to be builders. How does selling some other team in another state or country help my team or community? I'd much rather recount our drive and efforts and the fun involved with building our robots and competing at FIRST events.

You are assuming most everyone is motivated by winning and whatever else you are when clearly we and others we have talked to exist.

Your statement shows that you may be misunderstanding what's the mission of FIRST. It's not to appeal to members of already existing teams. Your attitudes about the attractiveness of STEM are already changed. As I've said many times, FIRST is aiming to reach well beyond your team. It wants to attract students who aren't inherently builders. That's great if that's your motivation, but why stymie the ability to attract others to the program because you have a specific preference? Why should your preference trump everyone else?

And given that preference, I'm don't see why allowing certain teams to focus on competitive excellence as their motivation conflicts with your preference to be motivated by the engineering challenge? Is there an inherent conflict that I'm not seeing?

And if you don't see how expanding FRC helps your program, then we need to have a separate conversation. Remember that your team was started in 2012 because FRC is expanding, so you have been directly impacted by that outreach. And others will benefit in the future as well.

BTW, I am not using personal anecdotes or statements of personal preferences. Please point to any of my posts that allude to my personal motivations for participating in FIRST other than I think this is a fantastic educational program that has the potential to reach a wide swath of the student population. What I have done is relayed what I have learned in my professional experience as an economist which includes an extensive knowledge of the research into the effect of incentives. I also have been a keen observer of sports action and management for even longer. I have tried to avoid any references to my own personal preferences. (It's something that I've developed in my professional work. In one week a few years ago I was called both a "Gringrich Republican" and a "commie pinko." Quite an accomplishment! ;) )

And most importantly I am NOT making sweeping generalizations that "most everyone is motivated by winning and whatever else." I am saying that many students and mentors are motivated by competition, and based on the postings here and elsewhere on CD, the teams that are referenced as being inspirational (see my passage above) are motivated in a large part by competition. And what those teams do on and off the field is inspirational to other teams, even those not motivated by competition. (And I do have the empirical evidence that almost everyone is motivated by incentives. That premise is the basis of almost all economic research. I'd be interested to know if you have contrary research. Winning competitions is one type of incentive.)

Finally, I respond to your posts because we are having a public debate about the fundamental mission of FIRST and I believe that your opinions are representative of a much larger group than just you. I don't view you as an isolated voice--you're expressing concerns and viewpoints that others have stated elsewhere and probably by many others who haven't said anything. So, yes I will challenge your statements and the sources of your statements because they carry weight.

jman4747

15-05-2015, 18:36

Your statement shows that you may be misunderstanding what's the mission of FIRST. It's not to appeal to members of already existing teams. Your attitudes about the attractiveness of STEM are already changed. As I've said many times, FIRST is aiming to reach well beyond your team. It wants to attract students who aren't inherently builders. That's great if that's your motivation, but why stymie the ability to attract others to the program because you have a specific preference? Why should your preference trump everyone else?

And given that preference, I'm don't see why allowing certain teams to focus on competitive excellence as their motivation conflicts with your preference to be motivated by the engineering challenge? Is there an inherent conflict that I'm not seeing?

And if you don't see how expanding FRC helps your program, then we need to have a separate conversation. Remember that your team was started in 2012 because FRC is expanding, so you have been directly impacted by that outreach. And others will benefit in the future as well.

BTW, I am not using personal anecdotes or statements of personal preferences. Please point to any of my posts that allude to my personal motivations for participating in FIRST other than I think this is a fantastic educational program that has the potential to reach a wide swath of the student population. What I have done is relayed what I have learned in my professional experience as an economist which includes an extensive knowledge of the research into the effect of incentives. I also have been a keen observer of sports action and management for even longer. I have tried to avoid any references to my own personal preferences. (It's something that I've developed in my professional work. In one week a few years ago I was called both a "Gringrich Republican" and a "commie pinko." Quite an accomplishment! ;) )

And most importantly I am NOT making sweeping generalizations that "most everyone is motivated by winning and whatever else." I am saying that many students and mentors are motivated by competition, and based on the postings here and elsewhere on CD, the teams that are referenced as being inspirational (see my passage above) are motivated in a large part by competition. And what those teams do on and off the field is inspirational to other teams, even those not motivated by competition. (And I do have the empirical evidence that almost everyone is motivated by incentives. That premise is the basis of almost all economic research. I'd be interested to know if you have contrary research. Winning competitions is one type of incentive.)

Finally, I respond to your posts because we are having a public debate about the fundamental mission of FIRST and I believe that your opinions are representative of a much larger group than just you. I don't view you as an isolated voice--you're expressing concerns and viewpoints that others have stated elsewhere and probably by many others who haven't said anything. So, yes I will challenge your statements and the sources of your statements because they carry weight.

You know what, fair.

I still think this won't hinder anything we do for recruitment or demotivate us. If it stops anyone else remember that there are other ways to accomplish many of your goals that have been successful for teams who probably have less resources than you do. We "bottom ~%90" teams have outreach tech too.

Finally I look forward to be playing "East Bound and Down" on the road between GA and TX for however long we compete there. Honestly I hate that I'm even still arguing. No one's going to change their mind here, so no more from me on this subject.

BrennanB

16-05-2015, 00:14

Honestly I hate that I'm even still arguing. No one's going to change their mind here, so no more from me on this subject.

It's only arguing if you aren't trying to look for the best solution.

Lil' Lavery

16-05-2015, 01:05

Let's start with the justification voiced by many in other threads for why the championsplit should have coequal fields rather than tiered qualification (to paraphrase): The top elite teams inspire other teams and should other teams at the 2 events should have an equal chance of interacting with those inspiring teams. Therefore one event should not be allowed to have a concentration of elite teams. Now those same elite teams are in fact NOT more inspiring and therefore deserve no special treatment. If that's the case, then you should have no problem if the championships in fact do have a tiered qualification system so that the top 400 go to one event and the next 400 go to other. Your position is inconsistent if you both opposed tiered events AND argue that elite teams are not anymore inspirational.
My position isn't inconsistent, because that's not my position. You created a strawman, or minimally posited other people's viewpoint as mine. Stop trying to lump all of the people that you have disagreed with into one hivemind.

Regardless, you are missing my point--this isn't about catering to elite teams.
Notice how that post (or all but one of mine in this thread) was not in response to you. Consider the posts I was responding to before considering whether or not I'm missing your point.

My point is that FIRST needs the celebrity of elite teams in the sports metaphor to attract students from the broader society.
Show me the proof. So far we concentrate our "celebrity of elite teams" at both Championship and IRI, yet to date we haven't seen the widespread cultural inspiration we're aiming for (funny what happens when you suddenly consider that inspiration might not just be aimed at other teams, which also breaks down your opening paragraph's straw man). Perhaps FIRST's approach of more high profile events spread out might lead to more attention from broader society?

No one has yet proposed a workable alternative model that will be as successful as the sports metaphor to reach widely across our society. Remember Kamen's goal is to change the culture so that scientists and engineers gain wider recognition and students aspire to be like them. You may not remember this ad campaign, but in the 1980s there was a hugely successful ad campaign with Michael Jordan who's pitch line was "Be like Mike." And the implication was obvious--emulate a celebrity pro athlete. This is a fundamental truth of marketing. You may not like marketing truths imply about us, but they are what they are.
I think two regional championships does just fine as the sports metaphor in terms of reaching across society. The people that the "championsplit" impacts are within our own borders as a community, not without it. Nobody outside of FIRST is going to care if we have one champion alliance or two, or if teams from Michigan aren't playing against teams from Texas. Outsideers will be able to understand North Championship and South Championship perfectly fine.

So it's not about elite teams trying to "trump" HQs decision; it's about the usefulness of elite teams for promoting the mission of FIRST. Every successful sport needs its elite celebrities. In my favorite sport, track & field, this has become a real problem because too many of the celebrity athletes disappear in non-Olympic years. The sport is now heavily dependent on Usain Bolt, and he was gone last year so interest dropped significantly. In 1960, 80,000 spectators showed up for the US-USSR dual meet at Stanford. This year other than the Prefontaine meet in Eugene (about 13,000), no meet will draw more than 10,000 spectators and most less than 5,000. The elite track athletes now avoid meeting each other because the current incentives tell them to do so. I certainly want FIRST to avoid the fate of U.S. track & field.
STEM absolutely needs celebrities. The thing is, as you alluded to earlier, FIRST is about recognizing scientists and engineers as celebrities, not teams. FIRST doesn't replicate sports for the sake of FIRST being a sport. FIRST replicates sport for the sake of changing the larger culture. This isn't about making the Citrus Circuits a household name, this is about making Woodie Flowers a household name. FIRST growing as a sport can help that, but it's not the end-all be-all. Not to mention, but the reality is that the outside public doesn't know the difference between the Citrus Circuits and Dawgma. Neither of our teams is going to attract a significant difference in outside public opinion, regardless of our status within the community as "elite teams." We're not even close the point where people outside our own community track the results and learn about teams they aren't personally invested in. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we reach that point by 2020.

Deke

16-05-2015, 01:18

There are multiple things at play here so its not really a simple solution and growing pains are tough. There are many many ways to grow and expand an organization. Different people see different priorities as growth occurs and it can lead to disagreements.

Everyone knows that FIRST is for Inspiration and Recognition.

To me, inspiration and recognition comes from some cool stuff done by some pretty awesome people. How do you get cool stuff done by awesome people? You get them lured in somehow. How do you do that? With a sports model! This ignites growth in the program.

Like many others have said already, the competition is the vehicle. Slowing down the vehicle can slow down the growth. The championsplit does not completely extinguish the competitive fire, but it does not fuel it. It's a step closer to a science fair.

I love working with the kids, but if I had to choose between working with kids to enter a science fair or working with kids to build a robot to compete in a worldwide robotics competition, I'm choosing the later every time. How cool is that, a worldwide robotics competition!

Well, I guess there can be co world champions... that were at different locations... that didn't compete in the same tournament... that's pretty cool...

Citrus Dad

17-05-2015, 18:10

You know what, fair.

I still think this won't hinder anything we do for recruitment or demotivate us. If it stops anyone else remember that there are other ways to accomplish many of your goals that have been successful for teams who probably have less resources than you do. We "bottom ~%90" teams have outreach tech too.

Again, you're taking a narrow "I only care about us" view. And that's fine to do, but don't use it justify how other teams and the overall program should be run. The point of FIRST is not to do outreach team-by-team--it's to do it program wide, top down. That's what publicity is about. It's about having teams at more that just your high school.

As for resources, understand that until this year we worked out of shared math classroom and two outdoor shipping containers. We didn't get any money from our school district until this year. So please don't believe that we have a different set of resources that you have. Yes, we have several more years of experience, but that steadily erodes.

My position isn't inconsistent, because that's not my position. You created a strawman, or minimally posited other people's viewpoint as mine. Stop trying to lump all of the people that you have disagreed with into one hivemind.

Show me the proof. So far we concentrate our "celebrity of elite teams" at both Championship and IRI, yet to date we haven't seen the widespread cultural inspiration we're aiming for (funny what happens when you suddenly consider that inspiration might not just be aimed at other teams, which also breaks down your opening paragraph's straw man). Perhaps FIRST's approach of more high profile events spread out might lead to more attention from broader society?

I think two regional championships does just fine as the sports metaphor in terms of reaching across society. The people that the "championsplit" impacts are within our own borders as a community, not without it. Nobody outside of FIRST is going to care if we have one champion alliance or two, or if teams from Michigan aren't playing against teams from Texas. Outsideers will be able to understand North Championship and South Championship perfectly fine.

STEM absolutely needs celebrities. The thing is, as you alluded to earlier, FIRST is about recognizing scientists and engineers as celebrities, not teams. FIRST doesn't replicate sports for the sake of FIRST being a sport. FIRST replicates sport for the sake of changing the larger culture. This isn't about making the Citrus Circuits a household name, this is about making Woodie Flowers a household name. FIRST growing as a sport can help that, but it's not the end-all be-all. Not to mention, but the reality is that the outside public doesn't know the difference between the Citrus Circuits and Dawgma. Neither of our teams is going to attract a significant difference in outside public opinion, regardless of our status within the community as "elite teams." We're not even close the point where people outside our own community track the results and learn about teams they aren't personally invested in. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we reach that point by 2020.

If what I responded to was not your position, then your's is not being stated clearly.

You say that no one outside of FIRST will care if we have one champion or not. And I've given you proof that it does matter. The fact that we were recognized much differently this year vs. the last 2 years is a strong example. That we get to meet with a key state senator comes from having one champion.

I blame the fact that there isn't more recognition society wide (which has been the basis of my posts--I've always talked about inspiring cultural change and my point doesn't break down when we go beyond inspiring FIRST teams) on the lack of a strong media campaign by FIRST HQ. I've posted about those shortcomings else, e.g. on the Championship Event Survey thread. We've tried to coordinate publicizing here with FIRST HQ and have heard almost nothing. If no one hears about it, of course it's not going to inspire the wider culture.

Which brings me to lack of celebrity. Yes, eventually we want Flowers to be the type of celebrity (but in fact I think we really want someone not even connected to FIRST itself, but rather groundbreaking researchers and engineers.) However, the idea is that teams can become celebrities. In California, the De La Salle football team is a celebrity sports program. Many sports fans know about them, but most could not name the coach or any of his athletes. DLS has the advantage of being embedded into a sport that has a whole journalist culture built around it. Our team has worked at extending media outreach in Northern California, but we've gotten little help from the FIRST organization. We have 3 teams in the region that have been on the last 2 world championship alliances but there's no coordinated media campaign to exploit this. Instead our team is going to be carrying the ball alone to promote FIRST locally. If FIRST hasn't even tried to effectively communicate the event to the media, how do you know that no one cares.

And sports/competitions can become suddenly popular with the right packaging. Two examples: poker and ultimate fighting. (OK, not the most wholesome...)

So I don't know why you want to make it even more difficult to reach the wider audience by splitting the champions? Every other sport is moving towards consolidated championships to increase visibility. Why run counter to what seems to be the collective wisdom? Again, I haven't seen how your rationale leads to a wider reach. Why is having 2 diluted champions a stronger draw? (I agree that having more teams at these events is a plus.) Is it simply "it doesn't matter"?

There are multiple things at play here so its not really a simple solution and growing pains are tough. There are many many ways to grow and expand an organization. Different people see different priorities as growth occurs and it can lead to disagreements.

Everyone knows that FIRST is for Inspiration and Recognition.

To me, inspiration and recognition comes from some cool stuff done by some pretty awesome people. How do you get cool stuff done by awesome people? You get them lured in somehow. How do you do that? With a sports model! This ignites growth in the program.

Like many others have said already, the competition is the vehicle. Slowing down the vehicle can slow down the growth. The championsplit does not completely extinguish the competitive fire, but it does not fuel it. It's a step closer to a science fair.

I love working with the kids, but if I had to choose between working with kids to enter a science fair or working with kids to build a robot to compete in a worldwide robotics competition, I'm choosing the later every time. How cool is that, a worldwide robotics competition!

Well, I guess there can be co world champions... that were at different locations... that didn't compete in the same tournament... that's pretty cool...

I was with you until the very end. That last sentence doesn't fit with the rest of your reasoning.:confused:

Citrus Dad

17-05-2015, 18:57

I think we've heard from the FRC community (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1482701&posted=1#post1482701), regardless of team membership or type, that they oppose championsplit. By all of the measures posted on that thread, the opponents outnumber supporters 2 to 1. That's a landslide. Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory was only 58.8% to 40.6%.

Citrus Dad

17-05-2015, 19:31

waialua359

17-05-2015, 20:14

I read this quote by Don Bossi at the townhall meeting in the survey thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1482421#post1482421):
And I thought about how the Chairman's criteria was changed to emphasize creation of new FLL teams. And I felt a letdown. I realized that what happened with FRC in championsplit is a complete afterthought for FIRST HQ.

I'm interested to see where this is emphasized or stated?
If true, my concern is whether it really matters if creation of new teams for outreach have to be FLL?
There is another competing program we feel more strongly about and we promote that extensively.

One program is in the business of catering to Robotics in elementary schools, the other partners with Lego in bringing Robotics. And it shows.

jman4747

17-05-2015, 21:06

Again, you're taking a narrow "I only care about us" view. And that's fine to do, but don't use it justify how other teams and the overall program should be run. The point of FIRST is not to do outreach team-by-team--it's to do it program wide, top down. That's what publicity is about. It's about having teams at more that just your high school.

As for resources, understand that until this year we worked out of shared math classroom and two outdoor shipping containers. We didn't get any money from our school district until this year. So please don't believe that we have a different set of resources that you have. Yes, we have several more years of experience, but that steadily erodes.

I can't stop... I'll just tell myself it's a re-statement.

1. I'm making a simple statement about our position. I made no comment to follow said statement saying that it justifies anything but my position. A takeaway could be "something is obviously still working for them maybe I'll try it once". If I followed your lead I'd be mildly sad and very disappointed at best.

2. All I'm saying is that there are other means of achieving the same goals that aren't hindered by the "championsplit", and that they don't require anymore than any team could come up with (be it money, time, or personnel). Also don't forget the tactics and effectiveness of anyone who you don't consider "top".

3. Find a positive somewhere, get some new inspiration tactics if you still think you need them, and move to Atlanta so you can sing this:

Keep your foot hard on the pedal. Son, never mind them brakes.
Let it all hang out 'cause we got a run to make.
The boys are thirsty in Atlanta, there's a banner in Texarcana.
And we'll bring it back no matter what it takes.

East bound and down, loaded up and truckin',
we're gonna do what they say can't be done.
We've got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
I'm east bound, just watch ol' "Bandit" run.

gblake

17-05-2015, 22:13

... FTC. ... faces a strong challenge from VEX. ...Dang it, don't make me pull out the emphatic Dave Lavery quote that chastises any and everyone who isn't focused on making all STEM-education/inspiration programs just as wildly successful as they all possibly can be.

VRC, FTC, BEST, BotBall, FRC, are not (had better not be) in competition with one another. They are all tiny compared to what is needed.

When talking to someone about STEM programs, graciously and professionally tell them about all of them, and at the end, once they are fully informed, if you want, explain why one program or another is your personal favorite.

When volunteering to make a program more successful than it already is, do it because all should be successful, not to exclude, harm or "beat" a different program.

Blake

Lil' Lavery

17-05-2015, 22:24

If what I responded to was not your position, then your's is not being stated clearly.
Please fine anything in my posts in this thread that allude to you dual championship proposal. You attempted to frame my position as "inconsistent" based on an entirely different thread and a position I never espoused in any thread. This isn't me making my position unclearly, this is you attempting to twist the words of multiple independent parties to suit your agenda.

You say that no one outside of FIRST will care if we have one champion or not. And I've given you proof that it does matter. The fact that we were recognized much differently this year vs. the last 2 years is a strong example. That we get to meet with a key state senator comes from having one champion.
You have given no proof. You were one of four champions this year, yet you still met with state senators. You weren't even the only champion from your home state. Do you think your state senators would have refused your visit if you won the championship in Houston and someone else won the championship in Detroit?

I blame the fact that there isn't more recognition society wide (which has been the basis of my posts--I've always talked about inspiring cultural change and my point doesn't break down when we go beyond inspiring FIRST teams) on the lack of a strong media campaign by FIRST HQ. I've posted about those shortcomings else, e.g. on the Championship Event Survey thread. We've tried to coordinate publicizing here with FIRST HQ and have heard almost nothing. If no one hears about it, of course it's not going to inspire the wider culture.
The only way that this comment could be connected to this thread is if you brought up the media attention FIRST has received historically. Like, say, the years where FRC was broadcast on ESPN. ;)

Which brings me to lack of celebrity. Yes, eventually we want Flowers to be the type of celebrity (but in fact I think we really want someone not even connected to FIRST itself, but rather groundbreaking researchers and engineers.) However, the idea is that teams can become celebrities. In California, the De La Salle football team is a celebrity sports program. Many sports fans know about them, but most could not name the coach or any of his athletes. DLS has the advantage of being embedded into a sport that has a whole journalist culture built around it. Our team has worked at extending media outreach in Northern California, but we've gotten little help from the FIRST organization. We have 3 teams in the region that have been on the last 2 world championship alliances but there's no coordinated media campaign to exploit this. Instead our team is going to be carrying the ball alone to promote FIRST locally. If FIRST hasn't even tried to effectively communicate the event to the media, how do you know that no one cares.
I have no clue who De La Salle football is, and I'm a football fan.

And sports/competitions can become suddenly popular with the right packaging. Two examples: poker and ultimate fighting. (OK, not the most wholesome...)
The younger of those two sports dates back to the 19th century, and it's TV popularity has faded dramatically in recent years. Neither of them has a singular championship, either. There is both the World Series of Poker and the World Poker Tour Championship. MMA has numerous organizations, each with numerous weight classes that are awarded their own championships. Multiple different organizations rank each fighter. So both of these aren't exactly helping your singular championship argument.
But the larger point here is that this isn't about promoting FIRST as a sport, it's about promoting science and technology.

So I don't know why you want to make it even more difficult to reach the wider audience by splitting the champions? Every other sport is moving towards consolidated championships to increase visibility. Why run counter to what seems to be the collective wisdom? Again, I haven't seen how your rationale leads to a wider reach. Why is having 2 diluted champions a stronger draw? (I agree that having more teams at these events is a plus.) Is it simply "it doesn't matter"?
For the umpteenth time, I don't support the split championship. If you actually read and considered other people's opinions you might realize that. Stop trying to drag every discussion off course. This is a thread about the FRC championship in a historical perspective, yet you're half responding to posts and half dragging them towards a different direction. It's reached the point where you're cross posting your own posts from other championship split threads (that have been countered there as well). If you actually stopped your campaigning to focus on what other people actually think, you might reach a breakthrough.

In response to your argument there, two championships doesn't make it any harder to reach a larger audience. If anything, it makes it easier since you have two local markets to reach with a free event. A singular championship doesn't matter to anyone outside of our own community.

EricH

17-05-2015, 22:42

GENTLEMEN.

Please take your nitpicking discussions to PMs. Y'all are starting to just plain attack each other--at least from my perspective, you are. If you can't agree to disagree, you may want to PM each other, come to an agreement of sorts, and then post a joint conclusion. Thank you.

Mods: If this sort of discussion continues, I will be requesting a lock. The thread has wandered far from its intended purpose and become a 3-way back-and-forth.

Siri

17-05-2015, 22:42

I have no clue who De La Salle football is, and I'm a football fan.De La Salle is a difficult standard to use as it's probably the most outstanding example in high school sports, but I'm not a football fan, and I've heard of it. (Incidentally, they're apparently from California, which probably skews the recognition over here on the east coast.) But let's not pretend that either of our anecdotes are reasonable substitute for evidence here. De La Salle football's feature length theater released movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2247476/) grossed over $30 million dollars total and hit #5 on its opening weekend. Richard's not remotely off-base with this assertion. I actually quite like the analogy; I hadn't thought of teams being celebrities before this connection.

JimInNJ

17-05-2015, 23:08

I read this quote by Don Bossi at the townhall meeting in the survey thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1482421#post1482421):

The story for FIRST® LEGO® League, FIRST® Tech Challenge, Junior FIRST® LEGO® League is much worse. FIRST Tech Challenge has the capacity for about 3 percent of their teams at Championship. FIRST LEGO League, it kills me when I talk to a FIRST LEGO League partner for a country and I say, oh we can’t even send a team this year, we don’t have a slot this year."

And I thought about how the Chairman's criteria was changed to emphasize creation of new FLL teams. And I felt a letdown. I realized that what happened with FRC in championsplit is a complete afterthought for FIRST HQ.

I will now be speculating, but I think it's internally consistent.

FIRST HQ is primarily focused on expanding FLL. Given that LEGO is a major supporter of FIRST and the Mindstorm package is credited as an important factor for the turnaround of LEGO (http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2013/10/features/building-success), FIRST HQ may be getting pressure from LEGO to continue to expand that market. FIRST recognizes for younger students just going to a "world" event is sufficient incentive, so having more "world" events is good for expanding FLL.

I started my first FLL team 3 years ago, and let me say that FIRST doesn't HAVE TO try to expand FLL. I believe that even if FIRST completely ignored FLL for a year or two that it would still continue to experience its' same tremendous growth for a couple of reasons. The program is affordable, it's easily mentored, and it's SCALABLE/EXPANDABLE within your school district, local youth organization, or even your dining room table, especially when everyone else in the area finds out that the program is available to them too. Startup costs are typically less than $100 per student, and ongoing costs are half of that. With ever-shrinking school budgets and family disposable income, this is a serious concern for parents everywhere. Teams can easily be coached by a teacher or parent without specific engineering skills, thanks to a huge amount of online training material available, not to mention the mentoring from local FTC and FRC teams doing their outreach.

FIRST HQ's second priority is FTC. It fits into a smaller scale so it can be more cost effective in more middle and high schools. And it faces a strong challenge from VEX. FIRST HQ has to find a way to turn around the FTC ship. Right now it's lost in the championship event.

I'm about to be a first year FTC coach, so I'm still learning. I have many concerns about how FIRST has dealt with FTC. My first problem is the way that FIRST has been dealing with this year's new technology rollout. Information has been dribbling out in too small pieces since March, and they aren't sharing the rest of what we need to know until the end of JUNE, but that's a problem for a different thread. My real issue is the way that FIRST "DISPLACED" the 128 winning FTC championship teams to a hotel ballroom up the road SO THAT THEY COULD GIVE FRC TEAMS THAT WERE SIMPLY SIGNED UP ON A WAIT LIST A PLACE TO BE IN THE ACTUAL BIG SHOW IN THE DOME. (I kinda think that my brain understands why, see below.) I realize that I'm probably throwing a hand grenade into the room, but maybe someone can explain this so that it makes sense to someone on the outside of FRC looking in.

FRC hasn't caught on fire--it's not a wildly successful marketing tool to promote widespread adoption of robotics programs across the US. (I've talked about how FIRST HQ hasn't adequately pushed this model, but that's a different thought.) So FIRST HQ is trying to figure out how to keep FRC around at these events in sufficient numbers and quality to inspire the FLL and FTC attendees, so that they feel like they are part of a bigger event.

Without attacking the current FRC team roster, I wonder if FRC, as it's currently de$igned, is expandable at more than the current annual percentages, as there are a finite number of new Fortune 500 sponsors that FIRST can attract to the program. While the current size is probably sustainable, I really question how much longer FRC can continue to find new "deep pocket" sponsors.

As far as "how to keep FRC around at these events in sufficient numbers and quality to inspire the FLL and FTC attendees", I wonder if I want my FLL and FTC attendees to be "inspired" by the attitudes shared in several of the current threads here on CD about how FRC team members can't be bothered worrying about whether FLL or FTC attendees are there at all, because it's supposed to be all about FRC. I hope I'm overreacting to a rude but very vocal minority here.

Ultimately, FIRST HQ sees an "AYSO" future which focuses on elementary school participation. Unfortunately AYSO hasn't been particularly successful at changing how the US looks at soccer, and it doesn't seem to have much of an impact on physical activity levels. Increased soccer interest is mostly driven by increased immigration. (The PNW might be an interesting exception worth looking at.)

So I'm afraid this whole discussion about how FRC is affected by championsplit is doomed to fall on deaf ears. We're just not their prime constituency anymore. I believe they have made a serious miscalculation, but at the moment, FIRST HQ isn't ready to hear that.

I think that you have missed the real reason for the "Championsplit". FIRST's prime constituancy isn't FRC, it's the companies that fund FRC, and FIRST in general. They love to come to the championships and point to the teams that they supported, and be able to say "My company invested well, look at the successful teams that we sponsor!" More FRC teams at championship, more happy sponsors that can point and smile! More happy sponsors, more sponsor investment. If all else fails, "FOLLOW THE MONEY!"

All of these opinions are solely my own, and I sincerely mean no disrespect to any individual, team, or sponsor.

Siri

18-05-2015, 08:21

I as curious about the prospect of FIRST emphasizing FIRST programs over others as well. This is from the Chairman's section of the 2015 Admin Manual (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2015/AdminManual20150407.pdf). I'll post it without comment:
■ Describe the impact of the FIRST program on team participants with special emphasis on the current season and the preceding
two to five years
■ Describe the impact of the FIRST program on your community with special emphasis on the current season and the preceding
two to five years
■ Describe the team’s innovative or creative method to spread the FIRST message
■ Describe examples of how your team members act as role models and inspire other FIRST team members to emulate
■ Describe the team’s initiatives to help start or form other FRC teams
■ Describe the team’s initiatives to help start or form other FIRST teams (including Jr. FLL, FLL, & FTC)
■ Describe the team’s initiatives on assisting other FIRST teams (including Jr. FLL, FLL, FTC & FRC) with progressing through the
FIRST program
■ Describe how your team works with other FIRST teams to serve as mentors to younger or less experienced FIRST teams
(includes Jr. FLL, FLL, FTC & FRC teams)

As far as "how to keep FRC around at these events in sufficient numbers and quality to inspire the FLL and FTC attendees", I wonder if I want my FLL and FTC attendees to be "inspired" by the attitudes shared in several of the current threads here on CD about how FRC team members can't be bothered worrying about whether FLL or FTC attendees are there at all, because it's supposed to be all about FRC. I hope I'm overreacting to a rude but very vocal minority here.I hope and suspect that a lot of this perception is from an idea that's less "it's supposed to be all about FRC" and more "what I'm doing is FRC". It's not that people are egocentrically conflating these two ideas, it's that it's difficult to see why it matters whether the three programs are together when you only have FRC experience. It's a lack of empathy that stems from a genuine lack of understanding, not a lack of compassion.

I've helped start JFLL teams, my team runs two annual FLL events, I've been an FLL head referee, a head design judge, and more. For FTC I've judged for years and done volunteer training. I've been around both for a long time, more so probably than many/most FRC mentors. But I've never mentored them, and my time at Worlds is spent entirely as an FRC pit supervisor and field coach. I still have trouble wrapping my head around why it's so important--so apparently non-negotiably important--for FLL (and FTC?) to see FRC (and each other?). I'm willing to trust the more experienced consensus, but it takes concerted effort to remind myself that there's no negotiable alternative.

Separately, I do understand the objection and was against the 'take over the city of St Louis and keep FLL and FTC out of the dome' method used this year, though I understand it as a single-year stopgap. Then again, the dome never had much affect on me, and my team has never used a waitlist slot for Worlds.

IKE

18-05-2015, 08:58

Alex2614

18-05-2015, 10:45

When we go to two championships, getting to the top of one of the two championships is the highest you can possibly do in FIRST. You really think a sponsor is going to devalue you because you went to the absolute highest level possible?
Currently there are 4 champions. Now there will be 8. It is still a VERY small percentage of teams that make it to Einstein and win. No sponsor is going to devalue your championship win because there are 8 teams that win instead of 4. Our sponsors don't devalue our championship awards now that they are done on a divisional level instead of championship level. So we were finalists on our field this year. There were 32 teams that were finalists on their respective fields this year. Sponsors don't care about that, though. Similarly sponsors won't care if there are 4 winning teams or 8. It is still the absolute highest you can go. When we went to alliances, we went from having one world champion to 3 teams on a winning alliance. and then they added the fourth. The number of winning teams has increased by a factor of 4. The number of teams going to Einstein has increased dramatically, especially this year. Instead of 16, there were 32 teams on Einstein. Tell me if any of those teams' sponsors devalue that accomplishment.

As far as percentage of teams attending, you really think a sponsor is going to not sponsor you anymore because you made it to the top 25%? Championships used to feature 25% of teams and nobody devalued that. It won't happen now either.

As far as media publicity for the championship, FIRST is looking into hosting an event with the winning teams from the 2 championships to crown a champion. Won't tha be a lot easier to publicize and televise than 400 teams? It would be a lot easier to follow for people outside FIRST too. A "champion of the champions" event.

It's been proven that teams that attend champs are more successful at obtaining sponsors and support. Those sponsors would still sponsor them if they made it to one of the two championships. Why? Because it's the highest "event" in FIRST, just spread across multiple cities. Only 20% of teams get to go. Or better yet 10% of teams in the East get to go to the east championship. It's still just as marketable as before. Sponsors aren't going to care. They will care that you made it to a top tier, world level event that only 20% of teams in the world get to attend. That is still something very special. And our students are going to get just as much of an incredible experience out of it that they are now in St Louis or Atlanta.

Rman1923

18-05-2015, 10:54

I've helped start JFLL teams, my team runs two annual FLL events, I've been an FLL head referee, a head design judge, and more. For FTC I've judged for years and done volunteer training. I've been around both for a long time, more so probably than many/most FRC mentors. But I've never mentored them, and my time at Worlds is spent entirely as an FRC pit supervisor and field coach. I still have trouble wrapping my head around why it's so important--so apparently non-negotiably important--for FLL (and FTC?) to see FRC (and each other?). I'm willing to trust the more experienced consensus, but it takes concerted effort to remind myself that there's no negotiable alternative.

Separately, I do understand the objection and was against the 'take over the city of St Louis and keep FLL and FTC out of the dome' method used this year, though I understand it as a single-year stopgap. Then again, the dome never had much affect on me, and my team has never used a waitlist slot for Worlds.

You had me cheering for you when you made this point. I'm actually on my way back from the first FLL Razorback invitational and I can tell you that you don't need all the programs together for champs if it's a question of inspiring. My team went in this weekend thinking it'd be their last weekend as a team (we have some eighth graders). But even though it was a invitational and 72 teams and not worlds, my team has unanimously agreed to continue the team again and asked me to mentor again. The eighth graders asked me the soonest possible time they could join FRC. Being at a FIRST event inspires you, and I think it's important to remember that. If you have FTC, FRC and FLL champs separate, it's still okay, I feel like the kids were more inspired by the other teams, the teams who did amazing, than any other type of robot. FIRST is designed to be inspirational at every level, and that's the reason I love it.

Alex2614

18-05-2015, 10:58

One piece of Historical information that I think would be enlightening if someone could put it together is the number of unique teams that have competed at the championship vs. the number of championship slots.

I think the inverse of this, IE the number of unique teams taht have never competed at the championship might be eye-opening as well.

I know the number of teams that have played in elims/playoffs vs. the number of slots is very eye-opening. Jim Z. did a study on that a few years ago, and it was pretty surprising. My guess is Championship slots would be similar. IE, I suspect that about 200/320-400 slots are routinely the same teams over and over... thus the realy mix of championship experience is a much smaller percentage. The 200 new spots this year and next year will support that quite a bit, also, the 200 new spots in 2017 and beyond will dramatically increase the "newbies" or "unique" championship experiences.

I personally do not think that every team needs to compete at the championship. Mathematically, FIRST seems to discuss the 25% attendance as if that will make it so that every team can participate within a 4 year window. Fact of the matter is, the math just doesn't work that way.

That's something I've been thinking about. As your percentage of teams at champs goes down, the number of unique slots will probably go down too, as more powerhouses are born. I don't want it to be the same 400 teams every single year with little margin for new teams. And as the number of events increases, we're going to run into a problem. It's like Einstein. How many "new" teams were on Einstein every year until last year? Not very many. It was a lot of the same teams over and over again. And when they doubled the number of teams on Einstein, alas, we saw many teams who it was their first time to Einstein, and thus, now get to go back to their communities and sponsors and tell them about it. The sponsors don't care that there are twice as many teams on Einstein as there were last year. They care that THEIR team was there. Likewise with two championships.

BrendanB

18-05-2015, 11:04

Siri

18-05-2015, 11:45

When we go to two championships, getting to the top of one of the two championships is the highest you can possibly do in FIRST. You really think a sponsor is going to devalue you because you went to the absolute highest level possible?Honestly? Yes. Absolutely.

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm glad you have that relationship with your sponsors. We do too, for the ones that understand FIRST and/or us well (Boeing, Sikorsky, etc). But in terms of marketing? Public recognition? In terms of attention grabbing and press impact and sponsors just being recruited? The buzz word isn't "highest level of competition" or "Region". It's "World". And not just in terms of "Champion", we've seen it as "World Finalist", "World Semifinalist", and to a lesser extent with "World Division Finalist". Everyone that gets an award, that even gets to Worlds can potentially benefit from that title. We've also been "Regional Champion" and "Region Champion". It's not even close.

People don't care how many Champions there are--they rarely even think about it--they don't care how qualifying works, the don't care about the bracket or the snake draft. Headlines are built around "World Championship". The R in FIRST comes from things that are easily comprehensible to the public: that's the entire point and method of going mainstream. "World" is a very big one of those things. People that already "get it", people that can put this in the FIRST perspective, are not the target audience that anyone's worried about losing with this publicity change.

It's been proven that teams that attend champs are more successful at obtaining sponsors and support. Those sponsors would still sponsor them if they made it to one of the two championships. Why? Because it's the highest "event" in FIRST, just spread across multiple cities. Only 20% of teams get to go. Or better yet 10% of teams in the East get to go to the east championship. It's still just as marketable as before. Sponsors aren't going to care. They will care that you made it to a top tier, world level event that only 20% of teams in the world get to attend. That is still something very special. And our students are going to get just as much of an incredible experience out of it that they are now in St Louis or Atlanta.You can believe this about all teams, but realize that you're speculating. (Your language doesn't tell me that you are.) I speculate that it will matter, based on the way my sponsors jump at the word "World". To be honest, if we marketed Worlds as "only 1 in 4 teams gets to go", we'd lose a lot of interest very quickly. No one thinks "a quarter of teams make it" when they think "World Championship".

I'm also not sure how you're getting "10% of teams in the East get to go to the east championship". How can you make the point that expanding the number of slots at the "highest level of competition" won't affect recognition by invoking a slot percentage that's half of what it was this year? FIRST's goal is 25%, unless you expect it to be that biased against the East even with their attempts at balancing. (Or unless you mean that half of the eastern teams (in the southeast) actually go to Huston? I don't think that's what you mean, but if so, I have to point out that it's it's both a deceptive statement and an example of why this gets so complicated to explain without reasonable buzzwords.)

You had me cheering for you when you made this point. I'm actually on my way back from the first FLL Razorback invitational and I can tell you that you don't need all the programs together for champs if it's a question of inspiring. My team went in this weekend thinking it'd be their last weekend as a team (we have some eighth graders). But even though it was a invitational and 72 teams and not worlds, my team has unanimously agreed to continue the team again and asked me to mentor again. The eighth graders asked me the soonest possible time they could join FRC. Being at a FIRST event inspires you, and I think it's important to remember that. If you have FTC, FRC and FLL champs separate, it's still okay, I feel like the kids were more inspired by the other teams, the teams who did amazing, than any other type of robot. FIRST is designed to be inspirational at every level, and that's the reason I love it.This is great to know. In wonder if HQ would be willing to poll these sorts of issues with FTC and (J)FLL teams. The ones I've judged seemed pretty inspired already.

BrennanB

18-05-2015, 12:13

It's like Einstein. How many "new" teams were on Einstein every year until last year? Not very many. It was a lot of the same teams over and over again. And when they doubled the number of teams on Einstein, alas, we saw many teams who it was their first time to Einstein, and thus, now get to go back to their communities and sponsors and tell them about it.

I believe I had blatantly proved this false
(http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1481461&postcount=44) earlier.

I don't have much else to say to that other than the fact that this idea is wrong.

Deke

18-05-2015, 12:42

I was with you until the very end. That last sentence doesn't fit with the rest of your reasoning.:confused:

Poor word choice on my part. I was just trying to say that going from one event to two events takes the 'wow' factor or 'cool' factor away from the championship

Alex2614

18-05-2015, 13:04

Honestly? Yes. Absolutely.

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm glad you have that relationship with your sponsors. We do too, for the ones that understand FIRST and/or us well (Boeing, Sikorsky, etc). But in terms of marketing? Public recognition? In terms of attention grabbing and press impact and sponsors just being recruited? The buzz word isn't "highest level of competition" or "Region". It's "World". And not just in terms of "Champion", we've seen it as "World Finalist", "World Semifinalist", and to a lesser extent with "World Division Finalist". Everyone that gets an award, that even gets to Worlds can potentially benefit from that title. We've also been "Regional Champion" and "Region Champion". It's not even close.

People don't care how many Champions there are--they rarely even think about it--they don't care how qualifying works, the don't care about the bracket or the snake draft. Headlines are built around "World Championship". The R in FIRST comes from things that are easily comprehensible to the public: that's the entire point and method of going mainstream. "World" is a very big one of those things. People that already "get it", people that can put this in the FIRST perspective, are not the target audience that anyone's worried about losing with this publicity change.

You can believe this about all teams, but realize that you're speculating. (Your language doesn't tell me that you are.) I speculate that it will matter, based on the way my sponsors jump at the word "World". To be honest, if we marketed Worlds as "only 1 in 4 teams gets to go", we'd lose a lot of interest very quickly. No one thinks "a quarter of teams make it" when they think "World Championship".

I'm also not sure how you're getting "10% of teams in the East get to go to the east championship". How can you make the point that expanding the number of slots at the "highest level of competition" won't affect recognition by invoking a slot percentage that's half of what it was this year? FIRST's goal is 25%, unless you expect it to be that biased against the East even with their attempts at balancing. (Or unless you mean that half of the eastern teams (in the southeast) actually go to Huston? I don't think that's what you mean, but if so, I have to point out that it's it's both a deceptive statement and an example of why this gets so complicated to explain without reasonable buzzwords.)

This is great to know. In wonder if HQ would be willing to poll these sorts of issues with FTC and (J)FLL teams. The ones I've judged seemed pretty inspired already.

There were 8 divisions this year. Twice as many as before. Now those 8 divisions will just be split up into 2 cities. If the 2 championships have 4 divisions each (with 400 teams each I believe they will), there are still just as many division winners and finalists as there were this year. Still just as many teams on Einstein as this year. You just have 8 winners instead of 4. Who was complaining when we doubled the number of teams on Einstein this year? Who was complaining when we doubled the number of division finalists? I certainly wasn't. And now we just take 4 of those fields and put them in a different venue. Market it to your sponsors as one world championship, spread across two cities. It's still called the "world championship" and the percentage of teams that go are similar to what they used to be.

Tell me how many sponsors were uninspired by a team that made it to the championship when there were 25% of teams attending before? Give me a concrete example of a sponsor that said "well 25% of teams get to go, what's so special about that? We aren't going to give you money." Because I can give you several concrete examples of exactly the opposite happening when 25% of teams got to attend before.

Give me an example of a sponsor being uninspired when we went from one winning team on Einstein to 3. Or from 3 to 4.

It's still the highest level you can get. Still a world championship event. Just now with 8 winning teams instead of 4. Spread across two cities.

AGPapa

18-05-2015, 14:08

Market it to your sponsors as one world championship, spread across two cities. It's still called the "world championship" and the percentage of teams that go are similar to what they used to be.

It's still the highest level you can get. Still a world championship event. Just now with 8 winning teams instead of 4. Spread across two cities.

FIRST doesn't use the term "World Championship" anywhere, they just call it "the Championship" or "the FIRST Championship". Are you seriously going to tell your sponsors that two events on different weekends separated by over 1000 miles is one "world championship"? That is extremely dishonest.

iVanDuzer

18-05-2015, 14:13

Tell me how many sponsors were uninspired by a team that made it to the championship when there were 25% of teams attending before? Give me a concrete example of a sponsor that said "well 25% of teams get to go, what's so special about that? We aren't going to give you money." Because I can give you several concrete examples of exactly the opposite happening when 25% of teams got to attend before.

Both teams that I have been a part of have knowingly and purposefully avoided using the 25% number. For one, it's a devaluation of the team's success (multiple Einstein berths, a regional win streak). For the other, what does it say about a team that can't make it to Worlds after five years when 25% of teams do it? Especially after saying time and time again that making it to Worlds is our goal?

There are definitely sponsors that are in it for STEM, and who "get" FIRST's message and believe in it. The problem is that any FIRST team worth their salt will find these sponsors relatively quickly (within the first few years). If these sponsors do not sufficiently cover the operating costs of the team, then you have to find sponsors who AREN'T super-gung-ho for STEM education. The first group of sponsors don't need convincing (sometimes because they're involved with FIRST already). The second group does.

And a great way to do that convincing is to chart accomplishments. Some teams tout Alumni Graduation rates in comparison to their peers. Others draw on on-field success. And different sponsors look for different things.

So no, I have never been told by a sponsor that they won't sponsor us because of the 25% number, because we never give them access to that number in the first place. On the flip side, you do have a very-outspoken example in this thread of a Championship team that has received buckets of attention (that they will probably turn into sponsorships) because they are the World Champion. And I can point out a couple other examples of that happening elsewhere as well.

Alex2614

18-05-2015, 14:14

FIRST doesn't use the term "World Championship" anywhere, they just call it "the Championship" or "the FIRST Championship". Are you seriously going to tell your sponsors that two events on different weekends separated by over 1000 miles is one "world championship"? That is extremely dishonest.

No, but I will tell them that 25% of teams make it to the "championship level." And our rookie year when close to 25% of teams went, nobody thought any less of it than they do now. It may not be one "event," but they're both the "championship level." It's still going to the championship. Just some teams go to one event and some to the other. It's still the highest you can get. And if winning one of those events is the absolute highest you can go in FIRST, what sponsor is going to say no to you because you got to the highest level there is?

Alex2614

18-05-2015, 14:18

Both teams that I have been a part of have knowingly and purposefully avoided using the 25% number. For one, it's a devaluation of the team's success (multiple Einstein berths, a regional win streak). For the other, what does it say about a team that can't make it to Worlds after five years when 25% of teams do it? Especially after saying time and time again that making it to Worlds is our goal?

There are definitely sponsors that are in it for STEM, and who "get" FIRST's message and believe in it. The problem is that any FIRST team worth their salt will find these sponsors relatively quickly (within the first few years). If these sponsors do not sufficiently cover the operating costs of the team, then you have to find sponsors who AREN'T super-gung-ho for STEM education. The first group of sponsors don't need convincing (sometimes because they're involved with FIRST already). The second group does.

And a great way to do that convincing is to chart accomplishments. Some teams tout Alumni Graduation rates in comparison to their peers. Others draw on on-field success. And different sponsors look for different things.

So no, I have never been told by a sponsor that they won't sponsor us because of the 25% number, because we never give them access to that number in the first place. On the flip side, you do have a very-outspoken example in this thread of a Championship team that has received buckets of attention (that they will probably turn into sponsorships) because they are the World Champion. And I can point out a couple other examples of that happening elsewhere as well.

Except they aren't "the" world champion. One of 4 champions. And in 2017 they'll be one of 8 champions (or 6 if we go back to 3-team alliances). And in terms of 3,000 teams, the difference between 4 and 8 is negligible. Just like when we went from one champion team to one champion alliance (increasing the number of champions 3-fold).

BrennanB

18-05-2015, 14:28

Except they aren't "the" world champion. One of 4 champions. And in 2017 they'll be one of 8 champions (or 6 if we go back to 3-team alliances). And in terms of 3,000 teams, the difference between 4 and 8 is negligible. Just like when we went from one champion team to one champion alliance (increasing the number of champions 3-fold).

Except FIRST wants to bring both the two winning alliances together anyways, so this is a probable non-issue

BrendanB

18-05-2015, 14:34

No, but I will tell them that 25% of teams make it to the "championship level." And our rookie year when close to 25% of teams went, nobody thought any less of it than they do now. It may not be one "event," but they're both the "championship level." It's still going to the championship. Just some teams go to one event and some to the other. It's still the highest you can get. And if winning one of those events is the absolute highest you can go in FIRST, what sponsor is going to say no to you because you got to the highest level there is?

The way FIRST is expanding the program in relationship to how many teams move along to the championships isn't inline with what we are used to in today's competitive culture. Something sponsors are more familiar and for the most part would agree with. The NFL, MLB, or NBA can keep adding in new teams but they will still work their way down to one winner. Qualifications (playoffs) might increase but they'll work their way down to a head to head match-up. They won't cut the Superbowl and leave it at the NFC and AFC Championships.

Is that in line with FIRST? Probably not which is where a lot of these debates are coming from because some people feel otherwise. People who enjoy spending a lot of money following their hometown team agree with it and these are often times the same people we are asking to support teams. If your lifelong sports team makes it to the Superbowl and you have the resources to spend lots of money on a ticket you will try to attend. Would you feel similarly in spending the same amount if it wasn't the Superbowl? For some people you'd still go since its the Championship but for some the magic would be lost.

Percentage wise 25% is consistent with what we have had in the past but even if you can sustain that you start diminishing what that level means. To a degree I'm somewhat envious of teams who win the highest awards at the FLL World Festival. The number teams involved and making it down to be the top team on the table or winning in the directors award is a huge accomplishment. Yet as it stands FLL is a broken system because many regions can't send a team every year which is sad.

JimInNJ

18-05-2015, 15:15

Percentage wise 25% is consistent with what we have had in the past but even if you can sustain that you start diminishing what that level means. To a degree I'm somewhat envious of teams who win the highest awards at the FLL World Festival. The number teams involved and making it down to be the top team on the table or winning in the directors award is a huge accomplishment. Yet as it stands FLL is a broken system because many regions can't send a team every year which is sad.

At that percentage (25%) this year's FTC championship event would have involved 1120 teams. In 3 years, given the current growth rates, this number could top 2000 teams. I think that the current 128 team bracket is just right, as it keeps the top level competition sharp with only teams that have won regional and super regional events.

In the case of FLL, the 25% number would be closer to 7000 teams this year, and 11000 teams in 3 years. I don't even want to think about 110,000 FLL kids all in the same place!

I'm still having trouble understanding why FRC teams expect to send 20-25% of the entire league to the top level championship event. Please explain it to someone on the outside looking in.

Gregor

18-05-2015, 15:31

I'm still having trouble understanding why FRC teams expect to send 20-25% of the entire league to the top level championship event. Please explain it to someone on the outside looking in.

Quite a few FRC teams don't believe in this. It's a stated goal for FIRST HQ, but not of many FRC teams.

gblake

18-05-2015, 15:39

Siri

18-05-2015, 15:49

Honest question: do high school sports teams that win say, the Mid-Atlantic Championship (or your geographic equivalent) bill themselves as "national quarterfinalists" or however many peer regions there are in the US for that sport? I've never seen anything like that, but I honestly don't know. This seems like a very bizarre debate if there's no precedent.

I'm still having trouble understanding why FRC teams expect to send 20-25% of the entire league to the top level championship event. Please explain it to someone on the outside looking in.This is an excellent question, and one many of us have been asking for a long time. What HQ actually says is "we want more kids to feel the passion and power that comes with being a part of FIRST Championship events." (This is from the announcement and is echoed elsewhere.) Unfortunately, they've translated this as "every kid needs to get to CMP no matter how many kids there are", instead of "we should make more tiers of events more inspiring". This is unfortunate not because I'm against the split, but because it's foundationally less scalable than the alternative. It's also weird from a historical perspective, because while every team could theoretically get in every four years if they manage to maintain the 25% number forever, that means 3 poor teams out there are hoping that 254 misses Worlds 3 of every 4 years. I have trouble imagining what Worlds would really be like if HQ actually enforced the prospect of getting in every team every four years.

Does anyone have a way to generate numbers on how close we've gotten to that "goal" for the era in which the rate was around 25%? ...And Blake, I disagree. We're straying some (okay, occasionally a lot), but the general trend is towards comparing historical aspects of champs to the present and future. I don't see this as a particularly big jump from the thread OP or title, but you're welcome to bring up a topic of interest to you that's closer (or the same distance away).

gblake

18-05-2015, 16:10

...And Blake, I disagree. I'll stand by what I wrote. "The last N posts in this thread have done little to improve my understanding of the HISTORY of FIRST's championships."

Maybe the historical perspectives of other readers are being improved/changed. Mine isn't.

IKE

18-05-2015, 16:46

The last N posts in this thread have done little to improve my understanding of the HISTORY of FIRST's championships. Know what I mean....?

Here is a little History:
Looking at this White paper: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/3133

Since 2001, there have been a total of 1608 Elim/Playoff opportunities. There have been 569 unique teams that have participated in playoffs. This is only a little surprising, but it is basically around 10% of all the FRC teams to ever exist.

Of those 241 have only had 1 occurrence. This could be due to a newly formed Powerhouse, or it coould be a 1 and done from 2008. What it does mean is that means that 1367 of 1608 oppotunities have been covered by teams that have had multiple playoffs. This number of teams is (569-241)=328 teams. IE 328 teams cover 1367 of the playoof/Elim opportunities, or about 4 times on average.

The top 100 teams (top 100 according to number of plays in elims) comprise of 775 of 1608 spots. IE, there are 100 FRC teams that basically cover 50% of playoff/elims spots.

As I said before, I would be curious what the similar attendence numbers look like, but as far as being contenders to win worlds, 50% of the spots in contention since 2001 have been covered by about 100 teams*...

Division SF and Finals are even crazier numbers...

*Not saying this number should be larger/smaller/different, just wanting to educate the audience a bit... BTW this is basically your top 3%.
Top 1% (about 31 teams) comprises about 1/5 to 1/3 of each advancing position...

Citrus Dad

18-05-2015, 18:10

Except FIRST wants to bring both the two winning alliances together anyways, so this is a probable non-issue

I'm not sure that will work out logistically. Given the events on the national and local academic calendars starting in early May and that many seniors are graduating by late May, I think the ability to bring together the actual winning alliances from the two events within the academic year are very limited if FIRST HQ is planning on holding a separate event. And post school year chances are even worse. FIRST has held its championship on what it has viewed as the last possible weekend of the school year. What will have changed?

FIRST HQ is more likely to offer up a championship event in a high school gym and when the teams can't make it, they'll say "Oh well. Must not have been important enough to those teams."

Citrus Dad

18-05-2015, 18:14

On the flip side, you do have a very-outspoken example in this thread of a Championship team that has received buckets of attention (that they will probably turn into sponsorships) because they are the World Champion. And I can point out a couple other examples of that happening elsewhere as well.

One added point, we're not looking to turn it into sponsorship just for us--we're trying to figure out to turn it into $$$ for California teams, now.

Citrus Dad

18-05-2015, 18:18

Poor word choice on my part. I was just trying to say that going from one event to two events takes the 'wow' factor or 'cool' factor away from the championship

Aaaah. :cool: Agreed.

Citrus Dad

18-05-2015, 18:23

Citrus Dad

18-05-2015, 18:32

I started my first FLL team 3 years ago, and let me say that FIRST doesn't HAVE TO try to expand FLL....

I think that you have missed the real reason for the "Championsplit". FIRST's prime constituancy isn't FRC, it's the companies that fund FRC, and FIRST in general. They love to come to the championships and point to the teams that they supported, and be able to say "My company invested well, look at the successful teams that we sponsor!" More FRC teams at championship, more happy sponsors that can point and smile! More happy sponsors, more sponsor investment. If all else fails, "FOLLOW THE MONEY!"

I think this is an interesting perspective outside of FRC. And it may reflect how FIRST HQ is not only out of touch with the FRC community but also FLL and FTC. I believe that FIRST HQ is top heavy with successful business-to-business CEOs who think that their knowledge translates to retail marketing.

And your last paragraph reflects that perspective--keep the sponsors happy without realizing that the sponsors really want happy participants. Someone else posted elsewhere that maybe FIRST HQ has gotten to wrapped up believing that putting on an extravagant Championship is what makes FIRST go.

Mr. Van

18-05-2015, 21:05

Here is a little History:
The top 100 teams (top 100 according to number of plays in elims) comprise of 775 of 1608 spots. IE, there are 100 FRC teams that basically cover 50% of playoff/elims spots....

Division SF and Finals are even crazier numbers...

BTW this is basically your top 3%.
...

This is perhaps the most relevant piece of information in this thread.

Even if 25% of teams could go to the championship in a given year, it is simply untrue that every team would be able to go within a 4 year period.

As has been pointed out, the Championship is much more about the show (for sponsors, media, etc.) than anything else. It has seemed that more and more, FIRST is focused on this one event and "improved" it with concerts, flashy displays (and paper airplanes?) while regionals in general have had less and less of this show aspect. How many regionals have official "team socials" on Friday night anymore?

What about this: NO CHAMPIONSHIP. Take the money, prestige, college row, displays, etc. and spread it around to the regionals. Give the 85% of teams that don't go to the championship on a regular basis a better experience. Nearly 50% of teams (or something like that) don't go to more than one regional. I suppose that this is what district champs are supposed to be.

Instead of making goal that the championship "experience" be something that a kid on a team experiences once in high school, make the event (regional) experience one that is as good, but happens perhaps eight times.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

dag0620

18-05-2015, 22:04

This is perhaps the most relevant piece of information in this thread.

Even if 25% of teams could go to the championship in a given year, it is simply untrue that every team would be able to go within a 4 year period.

As has been pointed out, the Championship is much more about the show (for sponsors, media, etc.) than anything else. It has seemed that more and more, FIRST is focused on this one event and "improved" it with concerts, flashy displays (and paper airplanes?) while regionals in general have had less and less of this show aspect. How many regionals have official "team socials" on Friday night anymore?

What about this: NO CHAMPIONSHIP. Take the money, prestige, college row, displays, etc. and spread it around to the regionals. Give the 85% of teams that don't go to the championship on a regular basis a better experience. Nearly 50% of teams (or something like that) don't go to more than one regional. I suppose that this is what district champs are supposed to be.

Instead of making goal that the championship "experience" be something that a kid on a team experiences once in high school, make the event (regional) experience one that is as good, but happens perhaps eight times.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

While getting rid of Championship is an extreme I'm not for, the sentiment of your post is something I agree completely with. Regionals and DCMPs will have more reach then Championships. Lets let those experiences be amazing on their own.

JimInNJ

18-05-2015, 23:00

And your last paragraph reflects that perspective--keep the sponsors happy without realizing that the sponsors really want happy participants. Someone else posted elsewhere that maybe FIRST HQ has gotten to wrapped up believing that putting on an extravagant Championship is what makes FIRST go.

While I respect your opinion, perhaps it isn't completely true for all sponsors. If you were correct, Opening and Closing ceremonies would have been over much sooner, without the line of sponsors coming to the podium to welcome everyone to the show that they helped to pay for, the "XYZ Company Presents" titles of the individual awards, CEOs getting to announce Deans List winners, and on and on and . . .

All of these companies could have just mailed in a check, but they CHOSE to appear and take credit in public for their efforts, and I applaud them for it. If you think that this public exposure makes no difference to at least some of them, then you are truly naive.

Citrus Dad

19-05-2015, 14:58

While I respect your opinion, perhaps it isn't completely true for all sponsors. If you were correct, Opening and Closing ceremonies would have been over much sooner, without the line of sponsors coming to the podium to welcome everyone to the show that they helped to pay for, the "XYZ Company Presents" titles of the individual awards, CEOs getting to announce Deans List winners, and on and on and . . .

All of these companies could have just mailed in a check, but they CHOSE to appear and take credit in public for their efforts, and I applaud them for it. If you think that this public exposure makes no difference to at least some of them, then you are truly naive.

I don't dispute that the sponsors want great exposure. What I said was confusing between what sponsors are doing right now, and what sponsors really want in the long term which is what I intended. An unpopular program doesn't achieve their long term goals.

However, I think that FIRST HQ has told them that participants are perfectly happy to sit through extended repetitive speeches. And by letting Kamen talk for extended periods, it's hard to put discipline on the sponsors unless FIRST makes a case that Kamen is more important/inspirational than the company VPs are. That may not be a step that FIRST HQ is willing to do. The problem is that FIRST HQ should better understand its target audience (which I think most of us seem to have a better feel for receptiveness to ceremony length) and tell its sponsors what they really should accept to increase the effectiveness of their support.

All of the major sports are trying to reduce the length of their games to keep fan interest. That reduces sponsor exposure (i.e., ad minutes) but the NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA etc have sold it to their sponsors.

EricH

19-05-2015, 21:11

All of the major sports are trying to reduce the length of their games to keep fan interest. That reduces sponsor exposure (i.e., ad minutes) but the NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA etc have sold it to their sponsors.

Hmmm... And I think I know how it was sold. Not sure if FIRST could do something similar.

There are actually a couple of pitches that could be used. One is "We're trying to shorten game length, if you don't like it you can leave." But somehow, I think they used this one: "We're trying to keep more fans interested. Yes, we know there won't be as many ad minutes, but we're trying to make it so more fans see those ads."

(Then there's the soccer option: no commercial breaks.)

I don't really think FIRST will be able to utilize that second pitch, though. Not until they make it onto TV regularly...

Siri

19-05-2015, 22:44

Hmmm... And I think I know how it was sold. Not sure if FIRST could do something similar.

There are actually a couple of pitches that could be used. One is "We're trying to shorten game length, if you don't like it you can leave." But somehow, I think they used this one: "We're trying to keep more fans interested. Yes, we know there won't be as many ad minutes, but we're trying to make it so more fans see those ads."

(Then there's the soccer option: no commercial breaks.)

I don't really think FIRST will be able to utilize that second pitch, though. Not until they make it onto TV regularly...I'll grant that Einstein viewers (inside the Dome) are a physically captive audience, but they are definitely not a mentally captive audience. I wonder if that's a big enough selling point. Probably not.

Citrus Dad

20-05-2015, 20:11

Here's a video that popped up in my YouTube list with footage from the 1992 to 2011 games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUHsAkY_3ow&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

Alex2614

22-05-2015, 12:40

I can only repeat what I've posted below. The reaction we've gotten this year is much stronger than the past 2 years when we were divisional champions.

But I think the bigger issue is what teams are striving to to do. Striving to be one of 8 champions just doesn't have the same panache as being THE champion. Even our biggest sponsor, a university, seems to respond to that difference in emphasis. UCD is now the No. 1 agricultural university in the world. I see it on billboards all over the region. I doubt they would do the same as "one of the top 8" agricultural universities.

Except, as I said, we haven't had "THE" champion in over 15 years. We have a group of 4 champions now. And in the future, we will have a group of 8 champions.

2015 had 4 champions, out of approx. 3,000 teams is the top 0.133% of FRC.
8 champions out of approx. 3,000 teams is 0.266%

Remember, we have 4 teams on a winning alliance, not a "single champion." So the winners from Detroit and the winners from Houston are together on "one winning alliance of 8 teams."

Have you had difficulty selling the fact that you were "one of 4 winners?" My bet is the answer is no. It's more like a "winners circle" than a "single champion," but still a very easy sell. Now bring that up to 8. Still will not be much of a difference.

The way FIRST is expanding the program in relationship to how many teams move along to the championships isn't inline with what we are used to in today's competitive culture. Something sponsors are more familiar and for the most part would agree with. The NFL, MLB, or NBA can keep adding in new teams but they will still work their way down to one winner. Qualifications (playoffs) might increase but they'll work their way down to a head to head match-up. They won't cut the Superbowl and leave it at the NFC and AFC Championships.

Is that in line with FIRST? Probably not which is where a lot of these debates are coming from because some people feel otherwise. People who enjoy spending a lot of money following their hometown team agree with it and these are often times the same people we are asking to support teams. If your lifelong sports team makes it to the Superbowl and you have the resources to spend lots of money on a ticket you will try to attend. Would you feel similarly in spending the same amount if it wasn't the Superbowl? For some people you'd still go since its the Championship but for some the magic would be lost.

Percentage wise 25% is consistent with what we have had in the past but even if you can sustain that you start diminishing what that level means. To a degree I'm somewhat envious of teams who win the highest awards at the FLL World Festival. The number teams involved and making it down to be the top team on the table or winning in the directors award is a huge accomplishment. Yet as it stands FLL is a broken system because many regions can't send a team every year which is sad.

Okay, let's look at the NFL. Two conferences, east and west, that then boil down to the Superbowl, with only 2 teams, and one ends up the winner. FIRST will now have two "conference" championships. And they are looking at sending the winners from those two events to play for the champions. So, actually, this is more in-line with sports than any model we had before. Most high school sports don't even go beyond state or regional level anyway. And, as said above, as far as coverage in the TV media, a "world championship" featuring the winners from the two international events battling for the crown of victory is much, much more sellable to national mainstream TV media than a 400-team championship. Even just Einstein has too many teams for the "non-FIRSTer" to follow. But they can follow just two teams, best of 5 in a half-hour special on ESPN.

Now let's look at your FLL example. As the number of events, regionals, DCMPs, etc. increase both in the US and beyond, how can we say with certainty that in 10 years, we will be able to sustain a 400-team championship? Will FIRST have to look into only sending some regions to the championships and not others, like FLL. FLL is a perfect example for this! They've not increased the number of teams that can attend the championship at all, even though the number of teams has increased dramatically. And guess what they ended up with? A broken system. If FRC keeps the championship at the same size, eventually, we will get down to a very small percentage of teams attending champs, and championship capacity will be too small for the number of events, again, just like FLL. Is this what you want? FLL did EXACTLY what people on this thread want FRC to do (keep the championship the same size, and see the percentage of teams attending dwindle ever downward as the number of teams and qualifying events skyrockets). Look at how well it worked out for them.

Citrus Dad

22-05-2015, 14:32

Except, as I said, we haven't had "THE" champion in over 15 years. We have a group of 4 champions now. And in the future, we will have a group of 8 champions.

2015 had 4 champions, out of approx. 3,000 teams is the top 0.133% of FRC.
8 champions out of approx. 3,000 teams is 0.266%

Remember, we have 4 teams on a winning alliance, not a "single champion." So the winners from Detroit and the winners from Houston are together on "one winning alliance of 8 teams."

Have you had difficulty selling the fact that you were "one of 4 winners?" My bet is the answer is no. It's more like a "winners circle" than a "single champion," but still a very easy sell. Now bring that up to 8. Still will not be much of a difference.

And there's several proposals that include the 800 team format and is expandable. Dumbing down all of these events so that somehow all participants feel like they're at coequal events is not a good solution for the health of the program.

Okay, let's look at the NFL. Two conferences, east and west, that then boil down to the Superbowl, with only 2 teams, and one ends up the winner. FIRST will now have two "conference" championships. And they are looking at sending the winners from those two events to play for the champions. So, actually, this is more in-line with sports than any model we had before. Most high school sports don't even go beyond state or regional level anyway. And, as said above, as far as coverage in the TV media, a "world championship" featuring the winners from the two international events battling for the crown of victory is much, much more sellable to national mainstream TV media than a 400-team championship. Even just Einstein has too many teams for the "non-FIRSTer" to follow. But they can follow just two teams, best of 5 in a half-hour special on ESPN.

Now let's look at your FLL example. As the number of events, regionals, DCMPs, etc. increase both in the US and beyond, how can we say with certainty that in 10 years, we will be able to sustain a 400-team championship? Will FIRST have to look into only sending some regions to the championships and not others, like FLL. FLL is a perfect example for this! They've not increased the number of teams that can attend the championship at all, even though the number of teams has increased dramatically. And guess what they ended up with? A broken system. If FRC keeps the championship at the same size, eventually, we will get down to a very small percentage of teams attending champs, and championship capacity will be too small for the number of events, again, just like FLL. Is this what you want? FLL did EXACTLY what people on this thread want FRC to do (keep the championship the same size, and see the percentage of teams attending dwindle ever downward as the number of teams and qualifying events skyrockets). Look at how well it worked out for them.

First saying that a single team on an alliance can't claim to be world champion is like saying Tom Brady can't claim to be Super Bowl champion because he played on the Patriots. Yes, the alliance is the world champion but the teams are members of that singular alliance. Russell Wilson of the Seahawks can't claim to be Super Bowl champion this year.

As for playoff events leading up to a single championship, there's a VERY important difference. In NONE of those cases is the championship played in front of a live audience substantially smaller than the playoff venues. For TV there's a huge difference between 20,000 in a stadium and 1,000 in a high school gym.

But the biggest barrier is simply logistics. I and others have pointed out that a separate event at a separate venue is unlikely to get all of the teams from each alliance at the final championship. That issue has been well covered. FIRST HQ's current solution is unworkable unless they are intentionally wanting to fail so they can say "we told you so."

JimInNJ

22-05-2015, 16:38

As for playoff events leading up to a single championship, there's a VERY important difference. In NONE of those cases is the championship played in front of a live audience substantially smaller than the playoff venues. For TV there's a huge difference between 20,000 in a stadium and 1,000 in a high school gym.

But the biggest barrier is simply logistics. I and others have pointed out that a separate event at a separate venue is unlikely to get all of the teams from each alliance at the final championship. That issue has been well covered. FIRST HQ's current solution is unworkable unless they are intentionally wanting to fail so they can say "we told you so."

This looks like the perfect opportunity for a Pay Per View event!:cool:

BrennanB

24-05-2015, 10:04

Now let's look at your FLL example. As the number of events, regionals, DCMPs, etc. increase both in the US and beyond, how can we say with certainty that in 10 years, we will be able to sustain a 400-team championship? Will FIRST have to look into only sending some regions to the championships and not others, like FLL. FLL is a perfect example for this! They've not increased the number of teams that can attend the championship at all, even though the number of teams has increased dramatically. And guess what they ended up with? A broken system. If FRC keeps the championship at the same size, eventually, we will get down to a very small percentage of teams attending champs, and championship capacity will be too small for the number of events, again, just like FLL. Is this what you want? FLL did EXACTLY what people on this thread want FRC to do (keep the championship the same size, and see the percentage of teams attending dwindle ever downward as the number of teams and qualifying events skyrockets). Look at how well it worked out for them.

This example is incredibly misleading.

FLL and FRC are very different monsters and you have made some totally outrageous comparisons here.

IF FLL was like FRC, you could only go to event where you can only play 3 matches.

"FLL did exactly what we want FRC to do" Is a completely ridiculous notion. The main problem with the FLL qualifying system is that not every region gets a qualifying spot. So you could have a season where it is literally impossible to qualify for the world championships. FRC should/would NEVER stand for that. The only reason it gets put by in FLL is because they presumably use the "They are just kids" and most teams aren't particularly serious.

You equating the specifics of FRC to the specifics of FLL is just silly. The programs are fundamentally different. Being on an FLL team is FAR less forgiving than FRC. How many times has your team had a bad robot day? Or an off chairmans day? Probably multiple times. In FLL there is no "second shot".

And if you look. Despite the fact that the qualification system is more or less broken. Tons of teams push themselves to reach that world class level. 9 year olds learning sophisticated PID. Mechanical linkages. Packaging. Stellar group work. Calibration of sensors. Creating patents for their ideas. Getting real business to make their idea.

FLL's bar is being raised way way way higher and faster than FRC. I see it in State/Provincial level especially. The teams improve every year drastically. And thus it makes other competitive teams try to match it. It's just like FRC, but to the extent that can grabbers were improved this year. That kind of pace and trend setting is common.

gblake

24-05-2015, 14:32

... FRC should/would NEVER stand for that. ...A) Why?
B) According to what authority?

BrennanB

24-05-2015, 14:48

A) Why?
B) According to what authority?

Point was an FRC teams chances should never be zero to get to the world championship.

Why? Because it's very demotivating. On what authority. I may be assuming that the teams that would have qualified would like to attend. It sort of sucks to have your end season determined by a lottery system.

If FIRST ever actually did that there would be a real riot.

gblake

24-05-2015, 15:12

... an FRC teams chances should never be zero to get to the world championship. ... And that is why FLL has grown and continues to grow, because it's OK for that to happen to FLL teams?
... Because it's very demotivating. ...And that is why FLL has grown and continues to grow, and has so few highly motivated participants?
... It sort of sucks to have your end season determined by a lottery system. ...And that is why FLL has grown and continues to grow, because of the end-of-season depression they all face?

My point is that oh so many people in this thread have made oh so many forceful assertions about what FRC is/isn't, and about what will happen if FRC does/doesn't do something, and.... guess what, oh so many of them are flat wrong.

Nothing personal toward you Brennan, your simple post was just the drop that overflowed the rain barrel.

Blake

Siri

24-05-2015, 15:53

My point is that oh so many people in this thread have made oh so many forceful assertions about what FRC is/isn't, and about what will happen if FRC does/doesn't do something, and.... guess what, oh so many of them are flat wrong.They're flat wrong if you assume that FRC and FLL are comparable. Why and according to what authority are you assuming that?

gblake

24-05-2015, 16:58

They're flat wrong if you assume that FRC and FLL are comparable. Why and according to what authority are you assuming that?
LOLz

I didn't write that anyone should do something. I didn't substitute my opinions for those of the people actually in charge of the FIRST programs.

Instead, I observed that FLL has grown and continues to grow, even though it "suffers" from the "flaws" Brennan enumerated. That doesn't require any authority (not the sort being discussed here).

On the"why" topic, I *am* asserting that human nature, while it changes as students grow (and as already-mature adults interact with them), is constant enough across STEM programs for my provocative comments to be apt.

I can write a stronger foundation for my claim(s) if anyone wants one; but I really don't think it's necessary - if readers are willing to just step back from the debate, and take a little time doing some what-if, thought experiments that challenge their own assumptions.

Just ask here.

Blake
PS: So many conflicting claims have been made in this thread, I believe that over 50% must be flat wrong. I don't think that is a stretch at all.

connor.worley

24-05-2015, 17:17

The only reason it gets put by in FLL is because they presumably use the "They are just kids" and most teams aren't particularly serious.

Want to share your solution to this logistic nightmare?

Siri

24-05-2015, 17:41

On the"why" topic, I *am* asserting that human nature, while it changes as students grow (and as already-mature adults interact with them), is constant enough across STEM programs for my provocative comments to be apt.I honestly don't buy it. Is average human nature reasonably constant? Sure. But you've now assumed that human nature is the only controlling factor in these motivational conditions. That I don't buy for a minute, and not even pointing out the jump reads as a false equivalency. Maybe FRC and FLL are the same on the the relevant metrics: maybe investment cost doesn't matter and average time commitment is the same or irrelevant, and so on and so forth. Maybe the aforementioned drive for non-qualifiable FLL teams to be "World Class" is not linked to the existence of a single World Festival. I don't know. I have no evidence of any of this either way, and thus (quoting myself) will not "assume that FRC and FLL are comparable". I would honestly be interested in your evidence, or I would advise anyone against jumping to a similar assumption.

I agree with you on the fact that substantively contradictory statements cannot both be simultaneously true.

BrennanB

24-05-2015, 18:32

Big questions. Do I know all the answers? Nope. I'll do my best based on my interpretation. I don't claim it to be right, just my best guess.

And that is why FLL has grown and continues to grow, because it's OK for that to happen to FLL teams?
And that is why FLL has grown and continues to grow, and has so few highly motivated participants?
And that is why FLL has grown and continues to grow, because of the end-of-season depression they all face?

Firstly it's important to point out the teams don't actually know if they will qualify or not prior to the start of the season. (at least as far as I know) So are the participants demotivated? Absolutely not. They still grow partially due to the fact that they don't know if they will qualify prior to the event.

Second. Good FLL teams aren't fundamentally good because they want to attend a world event. They are good because they enjoy what they are doing. They don't do FLL for the event. This is pretty obvious because basically nobody gets to go to an international event. The fact that they are using LEGO is the biggest draw here I think.

Third. It's been like this for ages. For sure 2008 this was the case. Probably in previous years too. In general FLL teams have a shorter lifespan than say an FRC team. Parents have kids that get older, teachers retire or move schools. It's not uncommon for FLL teams to run for 3-5 years (or shorter) and then close due to lack of members/coach not at the school anymore. Or some teams graduate to FTC or FRC and just mentor an FLL team in the area.

Fourth. FLL's youtube culture is great. Just as strong as FRC showing how well their robots can perform at various tasks. I think this pushes the kids to keep improving.

Fifth. There is (almost) always next year. Normally (always?) after you lose the lottery you get a spot next year.

Sixth. Alternate world class event is an okay consolation prize if you get invited and can afford to go. People still prefer world festival though I think.

Seventh. FLL is more of a showcase of your robot. Repeating the same thing over and over again. There are no playoffs anymore (for the most part) Not a huge thrill or anything.

Eighth. Most FLL teams aren't super elite high achievers.

So.

FLL grows because despite the large negative for a few teams, it's well... only a few teams. The program has an overwhelming amount of positives.

Most participants are motivated.

And lastly, the teams that do have a season ended due to a lost lottery spot, if they care enough normally they are good enough to get into another international invitational. Then they bounce back next year.

My point is that oh so many people in this thread have made oh so many forceful assertions about what FRC is/isn't, and about what will happen if FRC does/doesn't do something, and.... guess what, oh so many of them are flat wrong.

Nothing personal toward you Brennan, your simple post was just the drop that overflowed the rain barrel.

Blake

No it's good to ask for clarification. I have drifted too far in the "this is the way it is" camp. It's a good reminder.

Want to share your solution to this logistic nightmare?

The fact that society thinks you need to be a certain age to be able to do something? That is hard. FIRST is helping with that to some degree. I suspect it's less heard of since it's a very small, and not particularly vocal minority 9-14 year olds. The "non-serious teams" aren't doing anything wrong. If that is the way they want to run it like that it's fine.

If you mean solving how only some regions get spots? That's simple, add more teams to world championships. 10-20 more isn't terrible. And they already did that this year. So i'm not exactly sure how many regions are counted out now, but I suspect less.

gblake

25-05-2015, 00:12

I honestly don't buy it. Is average human nature reasonably constant? Sure. But you've now assumed that human nature is the only controlling factor in these motivational conditions. That I don't buy for a minute, and not even pointing out the jump reads as a false equivalency. Maybe FRC and FLL are the same on the the relevant metrics: maybe investment cost doesn't matter and average time commitment is the same or irrelevant, and so on and so forth. Maybe the aforementioned drive for non-qualifiable FLL teams to be "World Class" is not linked to the existence of a single World Festival. I don't know. I have no evidence of any of this either way, and thus (quoting myself) will not "assume that FRC and FLL are comparable".

I would honestly be interested in your evidence, or I would advise anyone against jumping to a similar assumption.Warning - Long post follows.

I replied to Brennan's original assertion, with a couple of questions. I didn't reply to a case built on evidence, by citing additional evidence that leads to a different conclusion. And, that is still true.

Instead I pointed out that FLL has grown (a historical perspective), continues to grow (a reasonable projection), and is not full of demotivated participants (if I'm wrong, let me know), despite suffering under "handicaps" that some might say would doom a STEM program that includes/uses a competitive component.

However, replying to you, I agreed to build a stronger case (stronger than a naked assertion) that FLL's success is worth considering when wondering how FRC might fare under an FLL-ish hierarchy of competitions.

Below, I'll do that by complementing Brennan's recent post with this one, and I'll risk giving you the "talking stick" by asking you to estimate three percentages in a hypothetical future, and ask you to give an opinion about what those percentages would mean to the entire, top-to-bottom population of FRC students in that future. You will either help me make the case that the sky probably isn't falling (and won't fall), or not.

The opinion I'll ask for is your answer to this question: Overall, would that future's *entire* FRC population, in the aggregate, be healthy, and would the FRC program be likely to have a strong effect on how many fence-sitting or non-STEM students are swayed to pursue STEM careers?

Let's get to it:

The portion of the one Brennan post that started this particular sub-conversation said "The main problem with the FLL qualifying system is that not every region gets a qualifying spot. So you could have a season where it is literally impossible to qualify for the world championships. FRC should/would NEVER stand for that."

Here is a counterargument that relies on imagining what likely futures might hold (Brennan already wrote several strong counterpoints. I'll write something different from the points he already enumerated).

I believe that the original statement, quoted above, conveyed that in a competition structure where maybe 50% (or just about any other reasonable number you care to choose) of regions are guaranteed to send on-the-field winners to additional competition(s), and the remaining 50% (again, you can pick just about any other reasonable number) use a lottery to determine which of their on-the-field winners will be invited to additional competition, the entire program will suffer very serious/significant harm because teams' members will lose motivation.

Well, in the future(s) when this hypothetical competition hierarchy is implemented (because it is believed to be the best compromise available), I think it is reasonable to say:
1) That there will be many teams in each region.
2) That there will be more than one opportunity to compete within each region.
3) That earning a Regional championship will be a significant and praise-worthy accomplishment.
4) The only on-the-field way to earn a spot in post-regional on-the-field play is to win your region (and get an auto-bid, or a chit in the lottery).

So... In this hypothetical future, in each/any year, in the regions subject to the lottery that year, what percentage of the program's teams/communities will then decide
1) That the 1 in 2 chance that on-the-field excellence won't result in post-regional play, sucks so much motivation out of them that they decide to more or less permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture?

2) That the chance that some typically excellent team won't be at the post-regional competition, sucks so much motivation out of them that they decide to more or less permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture?

3) That all STEM programs are so uninspiring that they decide to not participate in any of them, and therefore permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture? (OBTW, "permanently" is a strong word, the more proper phrasing would be "until a new mentor/sponsor reinvigorates them.")

And, if you are still playing along, after estimating those three percentages; please also offer an opinion about whether the total top-to-bottom program is strongly effecting the choices of many, many, many on-the-fence and non-STEM students'.

Blake

Citrus Dad

26-05-2015, 12:16

On the"why" topic, I *am* asserting that human nature, while it changes as students grow (and as already-mature adults interact with them), is constant enough across STEM programs for my provocative comments to be apt.

I will assert that as a parent, and as an AYSO assistant coach, a Boy Scout assistant scoutmaster, a Little League and travel squad assistant coach, and as an FRC mentor (and who knows what else) that what motivates kids changes substantially between the ages of 10 and 18. AYSO participation drops precipitously after age 12 (as it does for many other athletic activities). I'll speculate that simply "participating" is not as motivating after that age. There is a very well known intellectual leap that occurs in that age range. Any parent will recognize how young teens often have trouble relating to their younger compatriots. Abstract reasoning, including reaching for goals outside of their immediate concrete experience, becomes much more important.

The FLL program is well designed to address the preteen student population. (I'd be interested in seeing the statistics on participation for the 13-14 age group vs other age groups.) But that doesn't mean that it will carry into the older group for FRC. Aiming for achieving success becomes much more important as a motivator for older teens, as well as greater social acceptance.

That premise has been the basis of my comments (and I've often made allusions to the AYSO program, how it fizzles after age 12, and has not significantly changed the culture around soccer in the U.S.--immigration has had a much bigger effect.)

Citrus Dad

26-05-2015, 12:49

Well, in the future(s) when this hypothetical competition hierarchy is implemented (because it is believed to be the best compromise available), I think it is reasonable to say:
1) That there will be many teams in each region.
2) That there will be more than one opportunity to compete within each region.
3) That earning a Regional championship will be a significant and praise-worthy accomplishment.
4) The only on-the-field way to earn a spot in post-regional on-the-field play is to win your region (and get an auto-bid, or a chit in the lottery).

So... In this hypothetical future, in each/any year, in the regions subject to the lottery that year, what percentage of the program's teams/communities will then decide
1) That the 1 in 2 chance that on-the-field excellence won't result in post-regional play, sucks so much motivation out of them that they decide to more or less permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture?

2) That the chance that some typically excellent team won't be at the post-regional competition, sucks so much motivation out of them that they decide to more or less permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture?

3) That all STEM programs are so uninspiring that they decide to not participate in any of them, and therefore permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture? (OBTW, "permanently" is a strong word, the more proper phrasing would be "until a new mentor/sponsor reinvigorates them.")

And, if you are still playing along, after estimating those three percentages; please also offer an opinion about whether the total top-to-bottom program is strongly effecting the choices of many, many, many on-the-fence and non-STEM students'.

Blake

I'll bite. But first the most important aspect of FIRST is not to motivate existing teams. It's to create an environment in which individuals in STEM careers become models of respect for student. And along those lines, specific STEM programs/teams become "stars" that have a fan base much like teams and athletes have in sports. This was Kamen's key insight as how create a STEM program that is DISTINCTIVE from other STEM-oriented education programs. In other words, FIRST should not become like the Siemens Competition in MST.

1 & 2) The top 10% of teams that aim for Champs every year will not work as hard to create engineering solutions to face the best in the world without a better than 50% chance of attending Champs. They will then not inculcate the same work ethic that shows up in outreach as well as Regional/District competitions, which will then lead to less motivation for at least 50% of the remaining teams if not more.

3) We already know the answer to this one: Prior to the start of FIRST, students pursuing STEM majors and careers had been stead (http://www.stemedcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/STEM-Education-Primer.pdf)y since the the 1950s. In other words the other STEM programs have been failing in motivating students. I don't believe that FRC has been widespread enough for long enough to yet have a measurable impact on this trend.

Siri

26-05-2015, 19:36

The opinion I'll ask for is your answer to this question: Overall, would that future's *entire* FRC population, in the aggregate, be healthy, and would the FRC program be likely to have a strong effect on how many fence-sitting or non-STEM students are swayed to pursue STEM careers?I'll answer directly and also do your breakdown. I think the rest of our question here is "if FRC were run like FLL in terms of having such limited access to Worlds". I'm not sure if you're also referring to other "if FRC were like FLL" points.

I believe (for emphasis, this is my belief) that if FRC had FLL's Worlds, the FRC population in aggregate would be healthy. I take healthy to mean that there are N number of students who are better off for having FRC, where N is great enough to offset any identified or latent costs. According to the latest Brandeis study, 69% of the recent FRC alumni surveyed reported "increased interest in science and technology careers" (report (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Who/Impact/Brandeis_Studies/FRC_eval_execsum.pdf)). Setting aside the scientific issues I have with this survey, I would expect that number to be significantly higher with the FLL-style system you specify. However, I would expect it to be slightly lower than a system with the same number of teams and competitive chances that instead flowed into a tiered structure which reliably culminated in the World Championship, without a lottery in between. Because the real question is not "will FRC be good when there are 10,680 teams (same number of students as FLL with current respective team sizes). That's going to be a wonderful problem to have. But just because it's a good problem to have doesn't mean that all the solutions to it are equally good.

Separately, I'd like to point out that I don't personally agree with the hardline "FRC should/would NEVER stand for that" position. I think it's a bad idea, but my beef with the FLL comparison really isn't about its Worlds qual structure.

So... In this hypothetical future, in each/any year, in the regions subject to the lottery that year, what percentage of the program's teams/communities will then decide
1) That the 1 in 2 chance that on-the-field excellence won't result in post-regional play, sucks so much motivation out of them that they decide to more or less permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture?

2) That the chance that some typically excellent team won't be at the post-regional competition, sucks so much motivation out of them that they decide to more or less permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture?

3) That all STEM programs are so uninspiring that they decide to not participate in any of them, and therefore permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture? (OBTW, "permanently" is a strong word, the more proper phrasing would be "until a new mentor/sponsor reinvigorates them.")1. I don't like this "they decide to...slack off" verbiage. What you're really asking is "Will the 1 in 2 (or 1 in N) chance that on-the-field excellence won't result in post-regional play mean that teams are going to cause less net inspiration and culture change? With what percent change?" My overall answer is yet, and my percentage change in net effect versus non-lottery is 2%. Roughly, I think that 1 in 50 teams will be less driven under this system. Not because they decide to be, but because the teams that could be on that cusp (I've been one) are very heavily attuned to the issues that advancement brings with it, both good and bad. I know that 1640 would be a very different team without it. I've also witnessed that this sort of level of...whatever we're calling it...is contagious without a region, at least one in Districts. MAR would look different if tier qualifying were cut this dramatically and probabalistically--it's a community within a community at that level, and one we've come to expect certain levels of inspiration from partnership from.

2. I don't think this structure would affect the elites much, though maybe an elite team would like to speak to that. In terms of excellent-but-not-elite, see the cusp teams discussion above.

3. The argument here seems to be that just because FRC doesn't work for a team doesn't mean that another program won't allow them to make the same contributions. I agree with this premise, but believe it's incorrectly applied. The question is whether an FRC-as-FLL move like this would negatively affect more teams than it positively affects (or substitute "students" or "culture" or just "units" for "teams"). The question is thus not whether those transferring teams will have another STEM program through which to inspire and change culture, but whether their net inspiration and culture change is larger or smaller than it would have been if the alternative FRC structure had been in place. For the transferring teams, I estimate that far greater than half would see a net drop in their impact, if only because FRC had some significant advantage that made them want to start with it in the first place. (And there would've been a major startup influx to reach this number of teams at all). However, I predict that the number of transferring teams itself would be quite low, probably under 1%. On the other-other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the overall attrition rate for FRC rose by as much as 5%. Transferring is a serious investment and requires trust in programs that, even if they deserve it, can be hard to garner. Not transferring isn't a reflection on the character of the teams, just on the structure of reality. Very little of this decision making is as conscious as the questions seem to convey.

gblake

26-05-2015, 21:45

I will assert that as a parent, and as an AYSO assistant coach, a Boy Scout assistant scoutmaster, a Little League and travel squad assistant coach, and as an FRC mentor (and who knows what else) that what motivates kids changes substantially between the ages of 10 and 18.
Hmmm, so you have been around the bush once or twice.

Lemme see: I am a parent. I am a Boy Scout I have been an assistant Scoutmaster. I have been in high school band. I am a member of and have been a officer of a fraternity. I have coached more than one little league baseball team. I have been an FRC and FVC/VRC mentor. I have organized many an FVC/VRC scrimmage. I have supplied successful advice to local and VP-level corporate STEM sponsors. I have contributed strongly to the explosive growth of STEM robotics programs in my home county, and the surrounding region (without needing to foul up the age ranges those programs target...).

Gee, it looks like our resumes are pretty much dead even. You might beat me by a nose in sports, but I think I am ahead by a nose in STEM robotics.

Now, lemme see if you are addressing anything I actually wrote.

You seem to be writing about whether older students might or might not participate in a program, just to participate in it. You seem to be implying that competing to win a single prize/title, or to defeat all opponents present at some gathering is important (more or less across the board) to sustain older students' motivation.

A) Students do fun things. Fun can take many forms. Some of them are competitions, many are not. Think for just a few seconds and I'll bet you can come up with at least three examples of each.

B) In the post you are replying to, I never wrote anything about minimizing competition; but you wrote this, I'll speculate that simply "participating" is not as motivating after that age.

How did we get from me pointing out that FLL has grown and continues to grow, while using a different competition structure than FRC; to you implying that I favor replacing FRC competition with simple FRC "participation"??????

I could go on, but I won't.

Blake

gblake

26-05-2015, 22:00

I'll bite. But first the most important aspect of FIRST is not to motivate existing teams. It's to create an environment in which individuals in STEM careers become models of respect for student. And along those lines, specific STEM programs/teams become "stars" that have a fan base much like teams and athletes have in sports. This was Kamen's key insight as how create a STEM program that is DISTINCTIVE from other STEM-oriented education programs. In other words, FIRST should not become like the Siemens Competition in MST.

1 & 2) The top 10% of teams that aim for Champs every year will not work as hard to create engineering solutions to face the best in the world without a better than 50% chance of attending Champs. They will then not inculcate the same work ethic that shows up in outreach as well as Regional/District competitions, which will then lead to less motivation for at least 50% of the remaining teams if not more.

3) We already know the answer to this one: Prior to the start of FIRST, students pursuing STEM majors and careers had been stead (http://www.stemedcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/STEM-Education-Primer.pdf)y since the the 1950s. In other words the other STEM programs have been failing in motivating students. I don't believe that FRC has been widespread enough for long enough to yet have a measurable impact on this trend.

Opening paragraph = Close, but off-target, and No

1 & 2) So, if there are 10,000 FRC teams across North America some day, and if FIRST evolves into using the competition format I made up; then 1000 of them slack might off some (but certainly not fold or quit), and 4500 of them might also be a little less excited. I guess that means that 4500 of them are unaffected, and 5500 are doing OK (but are a little less excited).

In what way, shape or form is that horrible, or even bad; if that is the compromise that gets FIRST from today, to a tomorrow of 10,000 teams, the vast majority of which will be doing just fine????

3) You didn't answer the question. I suggested that you speculate about whether organizations that are strongly affected by a future competition structure, will fold, or will simply find a different program to use doing STEM-spiration.

Blake

gblake

26-05-2015, 22:17

I'll answer directly and also do your breakdown. ...
Lots of words written by both of us. ;)

I think we agree (you predicted low percentages of teams would be affected) more than we disagree, about the central point I wanted to make earlier.

In my opinion, almost all of the hand-wringing over the "Championsplit" (cue ominous music) is making mountains out of molehills, as far as the future of FRC is is concerned. YMMV.

The program isn't going to die. The program isn't going to stagnate. The program's growth isn't going to slow significantly.

Very few current participants will care enough to look for alternative programs/activities. Those that do, will find more choices than you can shake a stick at (and I hope they do great things in those alternatives!).

Some people just aren't going to be happy about the change, for any of a number of reasons, but I predict it, and the almost inevitable further splitting in the future, are not going to amount to much more than small bumps in the road.

FRC's challenges are cost per inspired student, and volunteers needed per event; not whether the championship splits.

Blake

Siri

26-05-2015, 23:23

Lots of words written by both of us. ;)

I think we agree (you predicted low percentages of teams would be affected) more than we disagree, about the central point I wanted to make earlier.

In my opinion, almost all of the hand-wringing over the "Championsplit" (cue ominous music) is making mountains out of molehills, as far as the future of FRC is is concerned. YMMV.

The program isn't going to die. The program isn't going to stagnate. The program's growth isn't going to slow significantly.

Very few current participants will care enough to look for alternative programs/activities. Those that do, will find more choices than you can shake a stick at (and I hope they do great things in those alternatives!).

Some people just aren't going to be happy about the change, for any of a number of reasons, but I predict it, and the almost inevitable further splitting in the future, are not going to amount to much more than small bumps in the road.

FRC's challenges are cost per inspired student, and volunteers needed per event; not whether the championship splits.

BlakeI agree with most of your opinion, but I disagree about the premise that the Split is thus not a problem. Is the sky falling? No. But does that mean we shouldn't worry about it raining more often? This discussion still deserves to happen. I don't recall anyone saying this was going to kill FIRST (though I wouldn't be altogether surprised if N someones somewhere did), or even really stagnate. But see slower growth than it would have otherwise? Entirely possible. Also entirely unproveable. That doesn't mean people are wrong to be worried (or wrong to be not worried), or to be seeking out better alternatives. Things can be bad and need addressing without being devastating and dangerous.

gblake

26-05-2015, 23:43

I agree with most of your opinion, but I disagree about the premise that the Split is thus not a problem. Is the sky falling? No. But does that mean we shouldn't worry about it raining more often? This discussion still deserves to happen. I don't recall anyone saying this was going to kill FIRST (though I wouldn't be altogether surprised if N someones somewhere did), or even really stagnate. But see slower growth than it would have otherwise? Entirely possible. Also entirely unproveable. That doesn't mean people are wrong to be worried (or wrong to be not worried), or to be seeking out better alternatives. Things can be bad and need addressing without being devastating and dangerous.Still agreeing more than we disagree.

Many, many posts in this thread have described the split in nearly-apocalyptic terms (OK, I'm exaggerating a bit, but also not exaggerating by much).

When I wrote my (provocative?) observations about FLL's history of growth, I was trying to get some readers to un-entrench their viewpoints, just a bit.

Sure let's all continue to discuss (and let's all do less beating of dead horses).

Blake

Rachel Lim

27-05-2015, 01:52

I told myself I'd stay away from making long posts for a while, but after some of the comments about FLL / younger kids, I couldn't resist responding...
I've worked with kids in many different activities (FLL, Aikido, 4-H, and others), mostly aged 5 to 12, and I wanted to draw some connections I've seen between that and what I've experienced as a student on an FRC team.

In some ways this is similar to my other post on why we care about winning, but it other ways it's not. From what I've seen and experienced, external motivations matter to almost everyone. Once children are old enough to want the company of others, they seek the approval of others and the confirmation that what they're doing is right. Those emotions do not go away, but they do change. Two main things guide that change:
1. Growing up
2. Personality

Growing up: from praise to winning
When they're young, children seek approval from parents and teachers, older siblings and children, and from their friends. For them, "objective" measures include praise from teachers/parents and awards (regardless of who gives it).

As they get older, the emphasis on peer acceptance and other outside measures, grows larger. Perhaps it is connected to when children start to seek opinions other than their parents'. Perhaps it is that they start to identify more with other people in general, which leads them to prefer the company of children their age, who are more likely to identify with them. Perhaps it is something else entirely. Either way, it matters more who gives the praise or awards.

That trend continues, at least in teenagers (or at least in me), but it becomes even more fragile. It's a balance of wanting to hear confirmation that you've succeeded, knowing that you shouldn't be caring that much, and looking for ways to justify that. It's a balance of getting praise from some adults, and knowing that same action will cause others to criticize you, and asking whose opinion matters more. It's a balance of so many things that often just won't balance. Sometimes a completely objective measure simplifies everything. That's when winning on a larger scale starts to matter even more. This doesn't mean praise stops mattering--it doesn't; in some ways it matters even more. It just becomes very complex.

I'll stop there because I don't know how adults feel (plus most posters here are adults, so you're likely to be one and thus be able to fill the rest in yourself). But I'm guessing that same trend continues, except it becomes somewhat more logical (maybe?).

Personality: just wanting to win vs asking why others win
I'm now going to switch from using general outside motivations to winning, which is arguably one of the most objective measures (and just easier to use).

It is here that I've seen a split. Some people are just happy to continue winning. Others get to a point where they're no longer just happy to win and start asking why they won--or why they didn't win. They start looking at those who did win, and try to figure out what they did differently.

Most people, and certainly most younger kids, fall into the first group. Most FLL kids in elementary school are happy to just win something or just to see the points they got. Most FRC students are also happy with this. Having two Einstein winning alliances doesn't matter, because for 99.9% of teams they'll never be there, and so it doesn't matter that much to them.

The second characteristic is one of the main characteristics of CD and of many of the alumni who stay on as mentors. The vast majority of students in FRC do not remember or care who won. I can name the teams on every alliance that's won Einstein from 2011-2015. I would be very surprised if anyone else on my team knows the entire winning alliance from last year. The only reason I know those teams is because I've been inspired by watching them. The main reason they don't is because what matters to them pretty much ends in our teams. (Then there are some in between, who care but not enough to remember specific numbers.) Each way works for us. But for them--and for most students/mentors in FRC--the split champs will not change that much. Getting there will. At the same time there's a much smaller group to whom the split champs changes a lot.

This is also heavily influenced by what a team has already achieved. Teams that struggle just to compete are less likely to care about what other teams are doing. Teams that have never made it to champs before are less likely to care if the one they're at is the champs or a champs. At some point it becomes an individual decision though, or I wouldn't be writing this.

Putting it together: what this means for a split champs
FLL's method works for them partly because they're mostly younger kids and making it to worlds isn't as crucial to most of them, and because if they want it, there are other competitions they can go on to (FTC, FRC, etc.)

FRC has had too many teams at champs for too long to transition to that suddenly, if at all. It also cannot get enough teams to a single champs to cater to the first group, or split champs and justify it to the second. Hopefully someday this will transition to super DCMPs / super regionals and we'll have both again.

gblake

27-05-2015, 12:17

...
FRC has had too many teams at champs for too long to transition to that suddenly, if at all. It also cannot get enough teams to a single champs to cater to the first group, or split champs and justify it to the second. Hopefully someday this will transition to super DCMPs / super regionals and we'll have both again.The handwriting is on the wall. If FRC continues to grow, no one should be surprised at the consequences.

Blake
PS: HS students who work their buns off for weeks and months to produce a play, would seem to be passionately immersed in something difficult and inspirational, without any thought of winning a trophy, or a competition. In my experience, the most they can hope for is good reviews, plus positive audience feedback. Does that align well with your thoughts on student motivation, or is it an exception?

Citrus Dad

27-05-2015, 14:21

Opening paragraph = Close, but off-target, and No

1 & 2) So, if there are 10,000 FRC teams across North America some day, and if FIRST evolves into using the competition format I made up; then 1000 of them slack might off some (but certainly not fold or quit), and 4500 of them might also be a little less excited. I guess that means that 4500 of them are unaffected, and 5500 are doing OK (but are a little less excited).

In what way, shape or form is that horrible, or even bad; if that is the compromise that gets FIRST from today, to a tomorrow of 10,000 teams, the vast majority of which will be doing just fine????

3) You didn't answer the question. I suggested that you speculate about whether organizations that are strongly affected by a future competition structure, will fold, or will simply find a different program to use doing STEM-spiration.

Blake

1 & 2) If you're premise is that FRC gets to 10,000 and then institutes this play format, a whole lot will have changed in between, most importantly the establishment of state-level competitive championships a la districts. And that the filter will send teams to world champs, much as other high school sports do the same. (There's a list of those sports in one of these threads...:rolleyes: ). However, if you're premise is that FRC can get to 10,000 with the new format, I disagree with that premise. I believe that FRC will stagnate at near current levels and even shrink if instituted now, which is premise of my answer.

3) I was being obtuse in my answer, which is maybe some small % will go to VEX, but sum close approximation of 0% will move on to other STEM programs.

Citrus Dad

27-05-2015, 14:33

Lots of words written by both of us. ;)

I think we agree (you predicted low percentages of teams would be affected) more than we disagree, about the central point I wanted to make earlier.

In my opinion, almost all of the hand-wringing over the "Championsplit" (cue ominous music) is making mountains out of molehills, as far as the future of FRC is is concerned. YMMV.

The program isn't going to die. The program isn't going to stagnate. The program's growth isn't going to slow significantly.

Very few current participants will care enough to look for alternative programs/activities. Those that do, will find more choices than you can shake a stick at (and I hope they do great things in those alternatives!).

Some people just aren't going to be happy about the change, for any of a number of reasons, but I predict it, and the almost inevitable further splitting in the future, are not going to amount to much more than small bumps in the road.

FRC's challenges are cost per inspired student, and volunteers needed per event; not whether the championship splits.

Blake

Of course we're all speculating but I disagree with your premise that students will find other inspiring programs. As I mentioned earlier, the education landscape is full of stagnated STEM programs that haven't made a dent in the STEM path. The fact is that many students who were not predisposed to STEM in the first place will not be attracted to those other programs--cheerleaders, fashion designers, artists. FRC represented the first truly innovative program since the 1950s.

And I've witnessed another program make the same sanguine statements about its existence and failed to see how it's decisions would affect it's future. I've been involved with the core Olympic sport track & field for 40+ years. The sport thought that being the centerpiece to the Olympics would protect it. The arrival of professionalism was a key moment that the sport has badly mishandled. It's now fighting for its place among the minor sports, even in Europe where it was king for a long time. Making a series of poor decisions can create existential problems. The combination of championsplit and this year's game design raise questions about whether FIRST HQ is prepared to make those existential decisions properly. Track & field has not been.

To some extent we all draw from our own experience, and try to look outside of it where we can. I've seen one of my most beloved sports founder; I hope to help another avoid the same fate.

Citrus Dad

27-05-2015, 14:46

PS: HS students who work their buns off for weeks and months to produce a play, would seem to be passionately immersed in something difficult and inspirational, without any thought of winning a trophy, or a competition. In my experience, the most they can hope for is good reviews, plus positive audience feedback. Does that align well with your thoughts on student motivation, or is it an exception?

I'll put in an observation from the side, but Rachel probably has a different viewpoint (and I always find her posts insightful.)

There are two important differences here: First drama students in general are a different group with very different motivations. Think of "left" vs. "right" brain. Drama students are much more likely to be motivated by both internal artistic desires, and by wanting to socially connect with their audiences. They are simply wired differently than many of the kids who go into FRC.

Second, and more importantly, the school play isn't trying to reach out to students beyond those already interested in drama. On our team about half work REALLY hard, but they are either veterans or already very interested in STEM. The other half are either new or trying out a STEM program because it has several fun elements.

It's this "other" half which is the real target of FRC. Building FRC robots is not the technically most challenging thing that an advanced STEM student can do, but it is the most competitive and socially interactive way to working on a technical challenge. And by making the challenge achievable for most students, it allows and invites many new and exploring students into the program.

So I believe the drama example is not an appropriate comparison to FRC.

gblake

27-05-2015, 20:40

I'll put in an observation from the side, but Rachel probably has a different viewpoint (and I always find her posts insightful.)

There are two important differences here: First drama students in general are a different group with very different motivations. Think of "left" vs. "right" brain. Drama students are much more likely to be motivated by both internal artistic desires, and by wanting to socially connect with their audiences. They are simply wired differently than many of the kids who go into FRC.

Second, and more importantly, the school play isn't trying to reach out to students beyond those already interested in drama. On our team about half work REALLY hard, but they are either veterans or already very interested in STEM. The other half are either new or trying out a STEM program because it has several fun elements.

It's this "other" half which is the real target of FRC. Building FRC robots is not the technically most challenging thing that an advanced STEM student can do, but it is the most competitive and socially interactive way to working on a technical challenge. And by making the challenge achievable for most students, it allows and invites many new and exploring students into the program.

So I believe the drama example is not an appropriate comparison to FRC.OK, then I'll cite bands. All of my HS STEM buddies, but one, were also HS band members. So, if we were anything close to typical, that puts the left/right brain argument in doubt. I'm confident that proper statistical data would confirm that it is a red herring, in this context. There is some merit in it, but it doesn't dominate this question.

We worked hard, we excelled. We did not contend for local or regional titles. If our band (or our school's drama dept) had had a primary mission of outreach in addition to our other goals, we (they) would have done it.

The point is that whatever programs' goals might be, students are perfectly capable of becoming passionate about those programs, without needing to crown a single world champion alliance.

I am loath to inject any sports analogies into this (there has been enough of that already); but I'll point out that my HS football and basketball buddies also worked their buns off, knowing full well, before even pre-season practices began, that they were not going to post-season play unless something very unusual happened to the other local teams.

Crowning a single world champion alliance is not crucial to FRC's success.

That is my thesis, based on what I have experienced and learned from outside sources, and I remain unswayed.

Blake

gblake

27-05-2015, 20:54

... if you're premise is that FRC can get to 10,000 with the new format, I disagree with that premise. I believe that FRC will stagnate at near current levels and even shrink if instituted now, which is premise of my answer. ....I wasn't proposing any new formats as better or worse.

I was asking readers to imagine a future in which the 2015 format is obviously untenable; and to imagine that FIRST *might* create a post-local competition format sort-of-maybe-similar-to the current FLL format.

When readers imagined that wild-guess at a future; I asked them to imagine whether the FRC teams in that future would all get mopey and depressed. I think that instead most readers will agree that the program would probably do just fine.

Blake

gblake

27-05-2015, 20:58

Of course we're all speculating but I disagree with your premise that students will find other inspiring programs. As I mentioned earlier, the education landscape is full of stagnated STEM programs that haven't made a dent in the STEM path. The fact is that many students who were not predisposed to STEM in the first place will not be attracted to those other programs--cheerleaders, fashion designers, artists. FRC represented the first truly innovative program since the 1950s.
....FTC, VRC, several autonomous vehicle competitions, several software challenges, are all available as solid alternatives right now.

FRC isn't the only game in town, or even the only successful game in town right now, not by a long shot.

In one sense, that's good because none of those programs are as big as most of us would like them to be. We need them all.

We also need them all because one-size-doesn't fit all.

EricH

27-05-2015, 21:02

FTC, VRC, several autonomous vehicle competitions, several software challenges, are all available as solid alternatives right now.

I wonder what would happen if VEX decided to have a division that played at FRC scale...

*shudders*

Alex2614

27-05-2015, 21:07

OK, then I'll cite bands. All of my HS STEM buddies, but one, were also HS band members. So, if we were anything close to typical, that puts the left/right brain argument in doubt. I'm confident that proper statistical data would confirm that it is a red herring, in this context. There is some merit in it, but it doesn't dominate this question.

We worked hard, we excelled. We did not contend for local or regional titles. If our band (or our school's drama dept) had had a primary mission of outreach in addition to our other goals, we (they) would have done it.

The point is that whatever programs' goals might be, students are perfectly capable of becoming passionate about those programs, without needing to crown a single world champion alliance.

I am loath to inject any sports analogies into this (there has been enough of that already); but I'll point out that my HS football and basketball buddies also worked their buns off, knowing full well, before even pre-season practices began, that they were not going to post-season play unless something very unusual happened to the other local teams.

Crowning a single world champion alliance is not crucial to RFC's success.

That is my thesis, and I remain unswayed.

Blake
I agree wholeheartedly!

My high school band didn't even compete. Pretty much every other high school band in our state competes, but we didn't, because our goal was not to win a competition, but to entertain. But other schools that did compete, know fully well that they are not ever ever going to get to Bands of America, which is the closest thing band has to being a "national champion."
Also think about it this way, what other high school sport crowns a national champion? Do the winners of the state football championships all get together to crown a single high school football champion? No, they don't. But that doesn't stop millions upon millions of people gathering to watch high school football around the country. Actually, my state is split up into 2 athletic conferences, in addition to further division between A, AA, and AAA. So we do have 2 state champion football teams in AAA. And nobody saw it as devaluing anything when we split. They're still champions. We just have 2 now, and nobody thinks anything of it.

Having 8 teams crowned as winners instead of 4 is not going to break FRC. In fact, more teams being able to go back to their sponsors As a winner isn't a bad thing at all. Right now there are 4 teams crowned world champions, and sponsors still love ever one of them. They don't think anything of the fact that there are other teams that have also claimed that title this year. So you really think that if they don't care about having 4 champions, that having 8 champions is going to change anything? Nothing changed in that regard when we went from one champion team to two (when alliances first came about). And then 2 to 3. And recently from 3 to 4.

FTC, VRC, several autonomous vehicle competitions, several software challenges, are all available as solid alternatives right now.

FRC isn't the only game in town, or even the only successful game in town right now, not by a long shot.

In one sense, that's good because none of those programs are as big as most of us would like them to be. We need them all.

We also need them all because one-size-doesn't fit all.

The difference is that FIRST is really the only one (other than maybe VEX) that puts a huge emphasis on the "other" things. Our kids aren't JUST learning STEM, and not very kid goes into STEM. But we've had kids who were inspired to go into business or English or Education BECAUSE of FIRST. Meaning FIRST is successful in producing leaders in non-STEM fields. Additionally, because of this, FIRST is attractive to students who would not otherwise think about STEM. Many of these other competitions, software competitions, etc. only really appeal to those who are already interested in STEM. FIRST has the "cool" factor and the attractiveness to those who are not inclined or interested in STEM because they also have a place here.

gblake

27-05-2015, 21:07

Siri

27-05-2015, 21:13

OK, then I'll cite bands. All of my HS STEM buddies, but one, were also HS band members. So, if we were anything close to typical, that puts the left/right brain argument in doubt. I'm confident that proper statistical data would confirm that it is a red herring, in this context. There is some merit in it, but it doesn't dominate this question.

We worked hard, we excelled. We did not contend for local or regional titles. If our band (or our school's drama dept) had had a primary mission of outreach in addition to our other goals, we (they) would have done it.

The point is that whatever programs' goals might be, students are perfectly capable of becoming passionate about those programs, without needing to crown a single world champion alliance.

I am loath to inject any sports analogies into this (there has been enough of that already); but I'll point out that my HS football and basketball buddies also worked their buns off, knowing full well, before even pre-season practices began, that they were not going to post-season play unless something very unusual happened to the other local teams.

Crowning a single world champion alliance is not crucial to RFC's success.

That is my thesis, and I remain unswayed.

BlakeI was actually going to bring up band as well, and I did some competitive Shakespeare and public speaking back in those days. (Disclaimer: I was top tier in band but sucked at everything else.) Did we work hard for non-competitive field shows and for unjudged public speeches? Definitely. But did we (we being the people I knew in the activities well enough to judge) work harder for competitive situations? Almost universally, and by a lot when it was an award we wanted. We worked our tails off for football field shows, but only competed in parades. The atmosphere for parade discipline and practice was totally different--much higher. I see the same things with my military cadet color guards, and a number of other activities that have both competitive and non-competitive aspects. Intrinsic motivation is an incredibly powerful thing, as are motivations like positive peer pressure and team cohesion. And yet putting competition on top of that still contributes for many people.

I don't buy the left vs right brained argument either, but I do think there's a lot to be said about motivating those who don't already have intrinsic interest (the "other half"). Fence-sitters can be made passionate by FIRST, but we all know it doesn't always work. We need all the tools we can get. To this point, I don't think the Championsplit issue in this regard is just about not crowning a World Champion. If HQ had come out and said "next year we're not playing Einstein finals", you'd see some of the arguments we see now, but not all of them.

What FIRST was trying to do--at least I thought and the news article titles made pretty clear--was create a "Super Bowl culture" around FRC. Would professional football players work incredibly hard at their jobs if there was no Super Bowl? I'd bet so (though the money probably helps). But would football culture in the US be the same without it? Hah. There are probably millions of current and previous youth footballers who would crack up at that question, not to mention the billions of now-eaten chicken wings that wouldn't be. I'm not a football fan or a soccer fan, but I watch the Super Bowl. I've spent the last several World Cups outside of the US. These things eat cultures in ways that blow past--that completely dwarf--their typical fan base. Because they are THE Championship. You throw away a lot more than a Champion when you throw that away.

For the record, any energy I'm putting into this isn't invested into a dislike of the Split. It's invested into a dislike of FIRST's process of the Split decision (and announcement). That to me is not a molehill, it's a warning sign. I'd prefer not to Wile E. Coyote off any nearby cliff.

gblake

27-05-2015, 21:20

I was actually ...There are perfectly fine counterarguments to things like the Superbowl (who was the year 2000 College Footbal World Champion?). The existence of so many counter-examples for every example cited on any side of this discussion means that there is more than one path to success. It's not an either-or topic.

It's invested into a dislike of FIRST's process of the Split decision (and announcement).If you didn't know that many programs (including the current FIRST) operate that way, you do now.

Alex2614

27-05-2015, 21:21

Siri

27-05-2015, 21:32

There are perfectly fine counterarguments to things like the Superbowl (who was the year 2000 College Footbal World Champion?). The existence of so many counter-examples for every example cited on any side of this discussion means that there is more than one path to success. It's not an either-or topic.No, the existence of so many counter-examples for every example cited on any side of this discussion means that there is more than one pathway that potentially will not lead to failure. This is an entirely different thing that saying there are multiple ways that will lead to success. Effectively facilitating success requires an understanding of the mechanisms by which you're working and mandates a considerable and continual effort on the part of the actors. Discussion of problem points like this is a critical cornerstone of that process. (But do not to "like this" as implying a blanket acceptance of all horse beating, dead or otherwise.)

If you didn't know that many programs (including the current FIRST) operate that way, you do now.Hah. I survived the IFI incident. This didn't surprise me. I know I'm swimming the wrong way against the current. That doesn't mean I'd like it to continue.

Yes! Productivity over negativity! Why don't we all just wait until it happens to see if we like it or not. We can't change it, so let's just see how it works. I imagine that very few people comparatively will actually care. And those that DO leave over something as silly as this, I hope you find success elsewhere. Those of us that still care about FIRST's ACUAL mission (which is not to crown a single champion, sorry) will stay. And the program will still grow without you.Emphasis mine. This is a very tiring and incredibly insulting oversimplification of your opponents' arguments, and I'm frankly sick of it. Represent your (general "you") position, attempt to reach consensus about the future, but for the love of God stop with the logical fallacies against people with whom you (general "you") disagree. Please. I'm getting sick.

EricH

27-05-2015, 21:49

Yes! Productivity over negativity! Why don't we all just wait until it happens to see if we like it or not. We can't change it, so let's just see how it works.

I agree... and disagree. I'm not in favor, but I can be convinced. I'm not totally opposed, either.

Conditions of convincing (or alienating) are aimed more at the Inspiration and Recognition aspects than at competition. There are ways to deal with the whole "one world champion alliance", but if the other two points suffer, that's a bit harder to deal with.

I agree that a "wait and see" attitude is best.

But I disagree--very strongly--that we can't change it. We CAN. I'm not talking about doing away with the split here. I'm talking about influencing what happens NEXT. The NEXT split. The NEXT batch of inspiration and recognition. 5 years from now, when the contracts run out, where will we be?

Just to look at something, I've attended Champs in Epcot, in Houston, and in Atlanta. (Haven't made it to St. Louis yet.) Each was different. It's interesting to go back and read the threads on just the location change. Now... not only is there a location change, there's a second event. This ought to be interesting seeing it all shake out...

gblake

27-05-2015, 21:52

No, the existence of so many counter-examples for every example cited on any side of this discussion means that there is more than one pathway that potentially will not lead to failure. This is an entirely different thing that saying there are multiple ways that will lead to success. Effectively facilitating success requires an understanding of the mechanisms by which you're working and mandates a considerable and continual effort on the part of the actors. Discussion of problem points like this is a critical cornerstone of that process. (But do not to "like this" as implying a blanket acceptance of all horse beating, dead or otherwise.) ... OK, I'll rephrase "The existence of so many counter-examples of success for every example of success cited on any side of this discussion means that there is more than one path to success. It's almost certainly not an either-or topic."

Siri

27-05-2015, 22:24

OK, I'll rephrase "The existence of so many counter-examples of success for every example of success cited on any side of this discussion means that there is more than one path to success. It's almost certainly not an either-or topic."I don't see how this addresses my point. Success takes more than examples, it takes understanding of the mechanisms behind the success of those examples. It takes correctly applying those mechanisms if possible, or changing if not. It also takes work. Both of those are facilitated by discussion over problem points like these is critical to all of those requirements.

But I disagree--very strongly--that we can't change it. We CAN. I'm not talking about doing away with the split here. I'm talking about influencing what happens NEXT. The NEXT split. The NEXT batch of inspiration and recognition. 5 years from now, when the contracts run out, where will we be?This. A thousand times. This needs to be discussed, because it does matter. It needs to be subject to continuous discussion, because it is and has been a critical step in making things happen.

gblake

27-05-2015, 22:56

I don't see how this addresses my point. Success takes more than examples, it takes understanding of the mechanisms behind the success of those examples. It takes correctly applying those mechanisms if possible, or changing if not. It also takes work. Both of those are facilitated by discussion over problem points like these is critical to all of those requirements.
You wrote this "No, the existence of so many counter-examples for every example cited on any side of this discussion means that there is more than one pathway that potentially will not lead to failure. This is an entirely different thing that saying there are multiple ways that will lead to success."

I wrote this "The existence of so many counter-examples of success for every example of success cited on any side of this discussion means that there is more than one path to success. It's almost certainly not an either-or topic."

I *am* saying that I think there are many path to success (and I am pretty sure that I am right).

I will also say that I'm pretty certain that the multi-dimensional mechanisms involved in making FRC a success are weak and chaotic enough to make building a useful model of the sort you are implying, nearly impossible; and to make building one through a CD thread nearly impossible^2. YMMV.

In addition, IMO, this thread has dragged on far enough. I have been part of the problem the last few days. If there is anything new to say, someone say it. I for one am trying to close my sub-topics.

Blake

grstex

27-05-2015, 23:06

What FIRST was trying to do--at least I thought and the news article titles made pretty clear--was create a "Super Bowl culture" around FRC. Would professional football players work incredibly hard at their jobs if there was no Super Bowl? I'd bet so (though the money probably helps). But would football culture in the US be the same without it? Hah. There are probably millions of current and previous youth footballers who would crack up at that question, not to mention the billions of now-eaten chicken wings that wouldn't be. I'm not a football fan or a soccer fan, but I watch the Super Bowl. I've spent the last several World Cups outside of the US. These things eat cultures in ways that blow past--that completely dwarf--their typical fan base. Because they are THE Championship. You throw away a lot more than a Champion when you throw that away.

Fun Fact: There was an era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football#The_professional_era) when there was no Super Bowl and multiple professional football champions.

Siri

28-05-2015, 00:00

Fun Fact: There was an era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football#The_professional_era) when there was no Super Bowl and multiple professional football champions.I know. I also know that the superbowl basically a beast unto itself when comes to American cultural phenomena.

I will also say that I'm pretty certain that the multidimensional mechanisms involved in making FRC a success are weak and chaotic enough to make building a useful model of the sort you are implying, nearly impossible; and to make building one through a CD thread nearly impossible^2. YMMV.I don't think anyone here trying to build a model; we're just trying to debate mechanisms. Those are what make pathways.

In addition, IMO, this thread has dragged on far enough. I have been part of the problem the last few days. If there is anything new to say, someone say it. I for one am trying to close my sub-topics.

Blake Agreed. I hereby commit going cold turkey. I have no idea if this is the correct approach and have never tried it before. To anyone who continues, feel free to mentally envision all my witty retorts. :p

Rachel Lim

28-05-2015, 02:00

I continue posting in these threads because I find it interesting to try and understand what motivates us, and then because when I think I might have figured out something, someone finds a hole in my theory, so I reconsider it. I think (hope) after this I'm done though. I think I've said most of this before anyway.

line

FRC is interesting because among the students they try to attract are those who wouldn't otherwise be interested in STEM, but are drawn in because of the sports twist, and those who are already interested in STEM, and are looking for a competition. Not only that, but many students stay as mentors, some of whom are kept in because of the competition.

For the program as a whole, the split does not and will not matter. For the program as a whole, getting two winning alliances does not and will not matter. For the program as a whole, losing specific teams does not and will not matter. FRC as a program can and will go on, regardless of whether it has the same feel to it. (Note about losing teams: I don't think this will actually happen, but even if it did, it wouldn't have an impact on the entire program)

For many/most students, the split, getting two winning alliances, and losing specific teams will not change their experience in FRC either as a STEM program or as a competition. For many/most teams, the split, getting two winning alliances, and losing specific teams will not change what they do. Even for many/most mentors, the split, getting two winning alliances, and losing specific teams will not affect their opinions on the program.

I don't know. Maybe it really doesn't matter that much. Maybe I just don't get it. The more I think about it, the more confused I get. All I know is that to me, even when I wasn't there, it mattered.

We didn't make it to champs in 2014, so I followed the matches through webcasts. Following it as 400 teams was narrowed down to 16, then to 8; tracking the blurry robots cross the screen; holding my breath as the scores climbed and climbed; watching as 254, 469, 2848, and 74 broke the Curie Curse and won--there was a magic to it. Something that made me determined that someday I would understand how they did that. So much has happened since then. I've spent hours sorting through match and OPR data, following robot reveals, and watching webcasts. We made it to champs this year, and I watched Einstein in person. But so much began at champs last year, the one year my team wasn't there.

That's why I'm so torn on this. Because I felt the magic even just through webcasts. Because I watched it to see the final matches, but got so much more. I don't know if I would have paid attention if there were two champs, or if it was a final set of matches played after champs--maybe I would have. I've always associated champs with my obsession with FRC, and with one of the main goals of many mentors and top teams. But maybe in two years I'll look back on this and realize it wasn't nearly as important as I thought. Maybe the mentors who stay on do it for completely different reasons. Maybe top teams are motivated for completely different reasons. But until then I'll remember it as one of the moments that have inspired and pushed me more than almost anything else.

line

gblake, to respond to your question about drama:

There are indisputably many, many people who participate in countless activities knowing they will not be winning a trophy. But are they really not winning or competing in their own way? I honestly don't know. I will bring up three very different activities I've been part of:

1. When I help at the kids class at Aikido, the children there definitely do care about their rank. Testing days are not competitions, but they are a way for students to show what they know and to impress their parents and friends. There was a transition a while ago where testing stopped for quite some time, and there was a noticeable difference in how they practiced.

2. I used to do sewing/quilting through 4-H, and at the end of each year, everyone had the option to compete in two different ways. Participants who made clothing could take part in a competition where you basically present what you made to judges and answer questions about it. Everyone can also enter their projects into the county fair for it to be displayed and judged. It wasn't a huge deal for me (I also really disliked presenting), but for some kids, these competitions were a large part of the motivation to finish a difficult project.

3. I geocache on and off (or more accurately, I log my finds on and off), but my dad is really into it. There theoretically shouldn't be a competition--you find a box, sign your name on a piece of paper, and log your find online. But it has definitely become one to some people. From having streaks of finding at least one cache a day to certain caches where you get points for solving puzzles to get the coordinates and are ranked against other members, geocaching pulled it's most obsessed members in with the competition it offered--something it's predecessor, letterboxing, never had.

In all three cases, the competitions meant nothing to anyone outside the small group of participants (especially for the first two). In many ways it's the same with FRC--I don't think there are any teams that are famous with non-FRC participants outside of their school. But they have their own audience, their own competitions, and attract their own types of people. FRC has been attracting people not only interested in STEM, but many who are motivated by the competition (or at least I think). Not only that, but they keep many as mentors because of the competition. They will undoubtedly still be attracting students and mentors.

We may never truly know what the effects really are, what experiences are gained or lost, what motivations are changed, what it means in the long run. I do truly believe that the competition a part of FRC that has defined it for a long time. Maybe leaving that isn't that bad. I just know that without it back in 2014, I would have seen things very differently.

/end of my post in split champs threads, and long posts in general, at least for a long time

jtrv

28-05-2015, 08:18

As a student (i know my profile says Alumni, but 2015 is my last year, I graduate in a month), champs has always been the goal for me. I want to win. That's all. I know that FIRST is about learning and whatnot - but we learn during build season, and during reflection of events. In game 2 or game 3 of the finals at a competition - you aren't learning anything. You're doing your goddamn best to win. Don't tell me you aren't - everyone is.

My team went to champs once, for rookie all star, back in 2009. We haven't qualified since (not even waitlist). Everyone wants it, and we try our best to make it. We've made it to playoffs every year since 2012, and came in second place multiple times. So close, yet far away from qualifying. We know what we've done wrong every year, and we learn from it.

By near doubling the capacity of championships, I feel like qualifying will no longer be a special occurrence. I think a lot of people take that for granted - there are teams that go every year or near every year, and it's just another year of FIRST for them. For others, it's the end goal.

You might say doubling the capacity of Champs makes it so these teams can qualify and reach their goal - but to me, it would feel unearned and given to us. Now, winning a competition to qualify would feel like we did earn it - but there must be new ways to qualify come the split.

I mean, either way, I'd be psyched to go. I'm not denying that. But it would definitely feel like I never earned it 'properly.'

It's like having two valedictorians in your class. The second in the class feels great, no doubt, but he/she knows that it's odd being considered a valedictorian despite not being the top of the class.

Just my 2 cents. (I should note I speak on behalf of myself, not my team...)

Citrus Dad

28-05-2015, 17:58

Citrus Dad

28-05-2015, 18:08

Fun Fact: There was an era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football#The_professional_era) when there was no Super Bowl and multiple professional football champions.

Yep, I lived through it. The AFL wasn't a real threat to the NFL until about 1964. The leagues started negotiating a merged championship in 1966--not too long after that, and the first Super Bowl was in 1967. (I watched the Ice Bowl on TV.) Professional football VERY quickly figured out that a split championship was a big problem.

Baseball figured it out when it merged the World Series in 1903 when the older National League felt sufficiently threatened by the American League.

Notably, high schools have been moving toward singular national championships in many sports as well, which was discussed in another thread.

Convergence, not divergence, of championships has long been a trend. Most splits occur solely because there's a group that wants to enter the sport in some manner but leaves because of a dispute.

Citrus Dad

28-05-2015, 18:21

CitrusDad - You, I and many other people have discussed this to death - What do you want to accomplish?

My goal has been to get Championsplit opponents to stop investing so much energy in disliking something that I feel has only a minor effect on something that is a tool used by FIRST, but isn't the central mission of FIRST.

I don't believe that minor change will have anything more than a minor effect on FIRST's success accomplishing their central mission.

If dedicated and passionate people put less energy into disliking the Championsplit, they will have more energy available for other activities.

I disagree fundamentally because I've lived through a another fundamental change that the governing body dismissed as inconsequential. In my case it is track & field. The sport made a sudden and swift transformation to professionalism in the late 1970s and early 1980s. (I was involved both as an athlete and a volunteer.) Tennis had made a rather successful transformation in the late 1960s (and I don't know enough about that process to say why) and I think that the IAAF (T&F governing agency) thought that it would end up in the same place with little effort. The IAAF just let the events transform on their own with little (no?) guidance from above. Instead chaos has ruled. Individual athletes only look out for themselves and head to head competition among the very top has disappeared outside of the Olympics and World Championships. A loss in other events is too big of a risk. As a result spectator interest in the sport has plummeted. When Usain Bolt retires (probably after 2016) the sport will lose it's one recognized draw unless some one else spectacular emerges by the Olympics. The sport is on the brink of irrelevancy despite its core role in the Olympics.

I also watched the mismanagement of development of market economies in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Again, entities that could have more directly managed the transition and considered the actual incentives could have helped create a thriving market place. Instead we have Vladimir Putin.

So if I see that an action may be an existential threat to the health of FIRST, which I believe has the potential to be the most transformative change in STEM education, I will act on it. I'm not willing to leave decisions uncontested by a headquarters that I'm not sure is either in touch with the community or demonstrated a good understanding of incentives and motivations. So I'm willing to put a fair amount of energy into trying to influence the community and them (as well as meet with legislators about getting funding for FIRST programs.)

Citrus Dad

28-05-2015, 18:31

fargus111111111

28-05-2015, 20:16

I believe we are now beating a dead horse, but this thread has some of the best and most varied and educated discussion yet on the topic of two championships. As far as TV, we need the airtime to be recognized as a sport, think about it, all other sports get some, so why shouldn't we, and asking networks to provide airtime for two championships would be harder than for one, but more importantly I think that the student perspective MUST be considered, the students are the target of this program, are they not. As mentioned earlier in this thread, being able to say, "my team competed with the best in the WORLD in St. Louis this past weekend and we did well enough to bring home a trophy" catches people's attention, even doing so much as saying, we qualified to compete with the best in the world goes a long way toward gaining support and encouraging other people to become involved. I want to make a comparison here, FIRST, I think we can agree is somewhat on par with high school baseball as far as recognition, we get some, locally, but not on a large scale. Big tech companies like IBM, Tesla, NASA, and others are like the Major League. The direction they seem to be going with two championships seems like a step towards T-Ball, everyone gets a medal, but no one really knows who most of those kids are and writing that you played T-Ball probably won't get you far ahead of Joe Shmoe on a major league team. FIRST needs to be moving towards more of a minor league feel with televised games and spectators who attend because they want to watch the action, not because their child is there. I want to see how this thing plays out for them, is it, by some phenomenon, a huge success, or will it be a massive failure or somewhere in between. Is there any one good answer to the looming question of how we incorporate more teams while not losing the spirit of FIRST, no, there are many good answers, but the fact that this is a challenge we must face is promising, it means that more teams are getting involved, more teams mean more people, more people means more noise, more noise means more recognition, and more recognition means more inspiration. It is good to be out growing our venues and to be pushed to find new ways to do things. As EricH said, there is more than 6 weeks to go, so if we can put together a robot to compete in this event in six weeks then surely we can devise some kind of a solution to the problem at hand.

grstex

28-05-2015, 21:25

I'd like to offer my (rambling) historical perspective, as someone who was a student in the early 2000's. As you all know, there used to be no qualifications for championship, you just had to attend a regional to go. Everyone was welcome to compete. our team had only ever won one regional, and usually ranked in the middle of the pack at any given competition. I remember running (walking, actually) to small parts to get spare gears for the winch my teammate and I built our rookie year. I remember winning and losing. I remember seeing a few of the top teams' robots. I also remember playing frisbee and hacky sack, and water balloon ambushing our mentors at the hotel, among other things. I remember all the fun things we did together as friends and teammates vividly.

I had just graduated when FIRST switched to qualifying/using a lottery for champs. I remember feeling a little disappointed at the time because I knew not every student on my old team would get to experience FIRST the same way I did, and even if they did go to championship, they wouldn't get to see all the teams in FIRST. But I also understood why the change had to be made. And, I understood that the best parts of FIRST don't happen at the competition.

There's no question that going to regionals and Nationals was fun, but the truly impactful part of FIRST happened for me in the off-season, when my mentors offered me a summer job doing CAD for their business. I had a "REAL JOB," I thought. I worked in AN OFFICE! I had to be A PROFESSIONAL! I learned more about real life and what's expected of a worker than I could ever begin to imagine. And I had not only FIRST, but a professional job to put on my college resume and scholarship applications. I can't begin to see where I'd be today if I hadn't met my mentors in FIRST. (I also competed in BEST, which was great. It was tons of fun building robots in our friend's garage, but there were no mentors involved in that program.)

When I volunteer at regionals now, I see kids just the same way I was when I was in their shoes, and it makes me smile. They still joke around, they still cheer, and struggle, and dance, and have a good time. I still hear amazing stories from proud mentors about how their students are the best. How much of that will change with duel Championships? Who am I to say? But as long as the fundamentals are intact that gave me the access to opportunity that I had, then I think things will be fine.... for whatever that's worth.