Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

This is my 5th FRC competitive season and I mentor with two teams at two different maturity levels (3015-marked improvement each year & 340-amazing program...team that is destined for the FIRST hall of fame).

Last year I got to check off a bucket list item when I got to go to the world championships in St. Louis for the 1st time (both teams qualified). Even though both teams did well in qualification matches, neither got picked for elimination matches. It was a truly inspiring event and I returned to Rochester with more passion than ever to help both teams.

This year both came close, but neither qualified for St. Louis and I am sure both will learn from season mistakes and come back stronger next year.

Some years a great team doesn't make it to championship and sometimes a team that was on the right alliance at the right regional gets an experience of a lifetime. Minimally I think there should always be a path so that each FRC team that is willing to make the trip can experience the Championship event every 4 years minimum, even if they just drive a box with 4 wheels on it.

Athough it is predictable that rookie teams lack the experience to make them as competitive as veteran teams, it is so much fun to watch/encourage them try.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

It's more than possible I'm misunderstanding, but from what I see a HUGE part of FRC elimination rounds is knowing your opponent's next move and working a strategy based off of that. Especially at the championships and Einstein, where the difference isn't between individual robot abilities, but between how the match is played and what strategic edge you can get over your opponent. Obviously the principle challenge is designing a robot to play the game itself, but calculating the actions of the opposing alliance to create a plan of action is definitely a key aspect to FRC.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Since we started our team 6 years ago in 2008, we have qualified for worlds 7 times, only 2 of which have been on the field itself. If RAS, EI, or RCA did not get us tickets to worlds, we would have only gone twice, and only a small percentage of members/alumni/mentors would have had the experience of competing at the world level and meeting all the other teams, which I can guarantee has changed lives.

Personally, I like how diverse worlds is. And if the mission of FIRST is to spread the message of STEM education and get kids excited about it, why shouldn't we invite the teams that do exactly that to the championships? The Chairman's Award is supposed to be the most prestigious award presented at the competition, even if their robot is substandard. Why, then, should we keep these teams from participating at worlds, if they truly are "the model for other teams to emulate?" And it truly is my opinion that if you truly are a Chairmans or EI or RAS team, you probably have a pretty strong program, thus a pretty strong bot. I'm not saying that theirs are always the best, but they usually have some very good bots. I can tell you that if it wasn't for all the stuff that we do in our community that has resulted in our EIs, RCA, and RAS, then we would not have nearly as strong of a bot as we do now.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Personally, I think we can scrap the waitlist. With the new Wildcard system in play, I don't really think we need the RAS award to be a ticket to STL, to be honest, it kind of defeats the purpose of the rookie year. If a rookie does perform exemplary, in my mind they would've made it to the finals in their regional and either won or gotten a wildcard. However, FIRST - For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. I don't think there's any point at all in just going to STL to present something, while you watch in envy of being on the world's fields from 20 feet away.

tl;dr - Scrap the waitlist and RAS, keep Wildcards, EI, and RCA.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

What do you intend for regionals that don't have wildcards? For example, Smoky Mountains had 0 wildcards this year. I'm sure it wasn't the only one. What about teams that participate in only week 1 or week 2 events? There are next to no wildcards there, if any. And just saying that "if they really are that good, they will make it to the finals" is completely and entirely not true. Our rookie year, we had a good bot, but were picked by the #7 alliance as a 3rd pick at a very small event. Even veteran teams have this issue. Just because they don't make it to the finals does not mean that they are not good and do not have a good program. What you just said is that if you have a good program, you WILL make it to the finals (top 6). Again, even for veteran teams this isn't always the case. RAS really has little to nothing to do with the robot itself, but mostly do do with the team attribute aspects of their program. So you're saying that a rookie team that has an extraordinary program WILL make it to the finals?

If we had not attended worlds our rookie year, we would not have had nearly the amount of inspiration for the next year from our community, participants, and non-existant sponsors. Granted, we also won the regional, but let's say that we didn't. After we attended worlds, people suddenly got interested. Our rookie members (which was all of us) would not have had the inspirational and life-changing experience of worlds. We got rewarded not for our robot, but for the type of program that we ran. And the fact that it was an award that was important enough to qualify us for worlds inspired us and showed us that we can in fact win EI and RCA in the future, which we have. That whole foundation was laid by attending championships.

Anybody that says that RAS shouldn't be a qualifier for worlds has never been on a team when they won RAS.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

It's still an untested guideline, should we qualify for championships without making it to eliminations at a regional, we would discuss the situation before making decisions.

The guideline came about last year when were blessed to be the second to last pick at Madera. We were on a alliance with 254 and 1323, and were finalists. 766 at SVR was the last pick and was on an alliance with 254 and 971. that alliance won and 766 went to champs.

As 766 was getting ready to choose, I talked with some members, a few considered it financially risky to go. Verdict was to go. The students had a lot of fun, came back with a lot memories and ideas.

On 3309's end, we discussed how had if we had won madera, would we have gone? At this point we only at about $15k budget for that year and worked out of a classroom. we would have to raise more money, but that money could be used to invest in tooling. Since we did not go, we banked our money and used it for other expenses.

We felt that if you were a 3rd member of an alliance last year, the line could be blurry to go or not to go. this year is different, I am glad so many robots are playing better this year. We felt using your selection # was a poor metric for deciding to go to championships. There was too much debate and like 766, the discussions favored going to champs.

After that, I brought up that we should not go to champs if we did not make eliminations. Mostly this was agreed upon because not making eliminations meant we did not perform to our minimum standards, warranting a critical review. In short, we are competitive, not making eliminations would be a major problem. In 3309's history, we did not make eliminations our 1st two years and we haven't missed one since. In conclusion, the guideline formed around our minimum standard.

I guess we are a little pragmatic. Certainly our philosophies drive this guideline too. Did that answer your question? This a complicated topic because it deals with inspiration, I have not even touch our discussion points. I might have to explain more.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I think that right there is exactly the point of bringing RAS teams. To watch the very best in the world - hopefully not with envy but with the feeling of "we can do that some day".

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

This is obviously only a measure of the competitive merit of teams based on how they qualify for the CMP (and not even a particularly good one). Though I wasn't on Team 2337 when they attended the CMP as a rookie all-star in 2008, I heard glowing tales of an awesome competition as an underclassman. Even the second-hand inspiration of an RAS can have a lasting effect.

Of the 6 Wildcard 2nd Picks, only 1 seeded in the top half of their division, versus 15/54 of Winning 2nd Picks and 15/53 Rookie All-Stars. The former is a really small sample size, however.

Attached spreadsheet shows the data if anyone wants to take a look.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I find it very surprising that Hall of Fame teams, with their free pass to attend, out qualified the regional winning captains and first picks.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

What is the alliance mem line?

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Anyone who thinks that Rookie All Star is not a good ticket to Champs has never seen the look on the faces of a rookie team when a mentoring team (or individual) or the LRI gets to tell them they just got a buy to go to St. Louis. We work very hard with rookies at events to get them fired up and excited about First when they are struggling through their first competition. The RAS is one of those awards that we talk about when LRIs meet with the rookie teams each day. It gets them familiar with the judging procedures, cheering for other teams and learning what GP really means. One of my greatest moments at a competition is getting a firm "yes" when I ask a rookie if they will return next year.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

A "1" indicates that the team was the captain of the winning or finalist alliance when they qualified. 2 = 1st pick, 3 = 2nd pick.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Thanks! This is exactly the order that I would have predicted (maybe 8 matches per team did better sorting robots than I gave it credit for). Of course, I want more: for reference, how many teams were registered from each category?

If we keep the current qualification system, it is only a matter of time before the waitlist goes away completely (more regionals + districts = more spots taken up by teams who qualify). At some point, we will need to revisit the current qualification methods and make some hard choices. As I understand it, FTC does not invite 2nd picks (or even 1st picks) to Championships. It would not surprise me if FRC had to do something similar at some point down the line (as much as it pains me to say it).

Of course, as more of FRC goes to districts, it may just take care of itself.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Well why didn't you say so in the first place? :P

The sum is greater than 400 because some teams qualified more than one way (most common were Winner-CA and Winner-EI). Also, I gave winning teams their highest winning alliance member position (e.g. if they won as both a captain and as a first pick, they counted as a captain). That's why there's fewer Winning 1st Picks than Winning Captains or 2nd Picks.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Here's the average points each category earned based on alliance selections at the Championship using the FiM points system (16 for 1st seed or 1st pick, 15 for 2nd captain or 2nd pick, down to 1 point for 16th pick).