Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

There has been much chatter lately about the role of Championships. Whether as Cory puts it,
The answer to this question is how we want to accomplish the goals of FIRST.
Do we want to accomplish this by making Championships a place where we bring the highest level of competition from across the world to make the most intense game that the general population would want to watch? Or do we want to bring teams which would not normally attend Championships, and the sole act of playing with/against high caliber robots is enough to inspire these kids to pursue future STEM fields?

FIRST seems to have picked the path of inspiration, by the sole act of creating a 400 team Championship, and it works. I have friends on teams who attended Championships not because they fielded amazing robots, but because they got lucky and qualified in other ways. They have said that the single event of attending has changed their lives.

With all the talk that "Championships should be based on robot merit only," or "RAS EI/CA should not give you a golden ticket to Championships" I thought I would try and explain that more competitive Championships is not the only correct way to spread the message of FIRST.

Although it is fine to disagree with FIRST's stance on Championships, I would prefer if people weren't bashful of people with the opposite opinion. If you would really like to calmly discuss which philosophy is the 'better' choice, I would prefer you do it here to not clutter up other threads with off topic responses.

Thank you for remaining civilized.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I think the hardest part of picking people for championships that have amazing robots, but get unlucky, and would not get a chance to go to worlds without such awards existing.

Below is copied with my thoughts on the awards.
-------------------------------------------

I would disagree completely with this. The teams that earn those awards are the teams that strive for excellence. If you look at the 4 teams that won RAS at championship this year (4488, 4451, 4472, 4731), None of them actually won a regional. 4451 went to 2 events, were alliance captains at both events from seeds 7 and 5, made it to the finals in one event, but did not with their way based on performance. 4472 made it to the quarter finals from rank 11. 4731 ranked 19. And we ranked as the 4th seed at our event. All four of these teams had very capable robots, and so did many other teams. At championships, 4451 ranked 42, 4488 ranked 37, 4472 ranked 52, and 4731 ranked 94. But none of them would have made it without RAS. I saw first hand this year what championships did to the rookies on our team, and talking to them afterward they were all amazed and it is making them strive to be better.

I think its the 3rd picks at regionals that actually bring the Championship performance down. I know there are some regionals where the 3rd picks are deep enough to be amazing, but at a lot they are relegated to defensive bots because that is all that is left. I think that the teams that usually win the awards usually have better robots, and get picked higher, but because of luck don't make it all the way.
-----------------------------------------------
The problem is trying to go though all of those 200+ qualifiers, and finding the ones the are truly excellent. I cannot think of a way to make that work fairly and correctly

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I don't have much to add other than this: We only went to worlds last year because of a quickly done RAS submission. Worlds completely changed the direction and motivation of our team. It's a huge motivator for the teams that just haven't fully understood what FIRST is about yet. Not sure if I would agree that that is a great reason to let them come, but it sure is a positive thing for a lot of teams.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Competition is inspiring, it's that simple. Watching amazing matches happen at championships inspires me. Watching boxes on wheels doesn't necessarily inspire me. I'm in support of making championships more competitive; the wild card was definitely a good start to doing that. My guess is that championships will always have waitlists until every region switches to a district model. Regional championships like MSC and MAR are vehicles similar in inspirational quality to the Championship event. Once we have regional championships in every region, then Championships will move to a qualify-only event.

Also, I have a mini rant about RAS, EI, and RCA. I'm all about celebrating culture change and inspiration, and i know the regional winners are up to the regional board, but does everyone notice something about the championship chairmans award winners? They have extremely strong programs in terms of the robot they place on the field and their community presence. I hope I don't generate heat with this comment, but I believe that these awards should also take into account something about the engineering aspect of the team. How can a team share its excitement for STEM and lead others in the community when it fields a box on wheels at competition? I'd rather see the team that has a strong on the field presence and off the field presence than see the "chairmans only" team win the RCA. Why? Because part of every team's chairmans entry should show a strong program for students on the team and the community. The robot doesn't have to dominate every regional, but the model that the team expresses in its chairman's submission should work.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Hmm yeah, I am also a bit torn on this issue.

Full disclosure: Last year, 3929 was able to attend because we won the MAR Championship Rookie All Star award. At World Championships, we won Rookie Inspiration (and apparently the last non-divisional one). Our awards last year included Chestnut Hill District RAS and 14th seed (quarterfinalist), Mt. Olive District Champions as the 3rd bot for 222 and 25 and Mt. Olive RAS, then MAR Championship RAS. Though we were extremely lucky to be picked by 25, at least it was some minimum competitive level.

I think that Rookie All Stars should be able to attend and compete, purely due to the incredible amount of motivation and inspiration that comes from attending. My students had much more motivation and determination after attending, and I would hate to see a first year team miss that chance.

When it comes to auto-bid with Chairman's, I do think that there needs to be a universal point based minimum competitive level for these teams in order to be able to compete with their robots. This minimum point count doesn't even need to be much, but I think it needs to be there. I've seen Chairman's winners with semi-functional robots, which I am not sure I want to publicize as the ideal role model teams for FIRST to the public and to their peers. I know this sounds harsh, but even my rookie students were more inspired by teams with excellent and decent machines and Chairman's awards than a team with just a Chairman's award and a mediocre robot. But again, this methodology can only exist with a universal point system based off of FiM and MAR district models.

There needs to be a minimum competitiveness standard for veterans, but most probably not for rookies. Rookies really need World Championships to be inspired, whereas if you are capable of winning Chairman's, you have probably already been inspired.

With that said, I'm pretty positive the students and mentors of 3929 are pretty confident that they would not want to attend Champs based on luck of the waitlist, unless a universal point system deems them worthy of competing.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Here's a table of Average Rank in Championship Division this year for various methods of qualification. If a team qualified in more than one way (e.g. HoF and Regional Winner), they counted for both. The Rankings at the Championship were not quite representative of how good teams were. If anyone has a better suggestion, I'll take it.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

My team, while not entirely guilty of this, is definitely one of the teams that any person desiring "competitive" robots at Championships would pick out as "not deserving to be there." Our robot started at the top of the height limit, was tippy, tried to do too much and ended up doing not enough. We won two matches in Curie, mostly on luck. We literally rebuilt key robot mechanisms, including the drive train and shooter and climber, almost a half dozen times during the competition season alone. This isn't even restricted to this year. Our robots are fairly consistently ineffective.

And yet we qualified based on RCA. We spread our our team's spirit for STEM through hosting mini-regionals, workshops, a week zero event, and mentoring over twenty FLL teams (and by mentor I mean we give them kits, computers, and personnel). I'm not going to go through the laundry list of things that my team and I personally have done to spread our excitement for STEM in our community, but we do it. We struggle and we improve, and this year we were fortunate enough to be recognized for the first with the Regional Chairman's Award at the North Star Regional, where we've been submitting for almost six years.

Are we an absolute model team? Probably not. But our kids leave the program with a heck of a lot more than they came into it with.

When we come to Championships, we recognize the privilege that it is wholeheartedly, and we make the most of it. Out of the 50-odd people that came with us to Championships, 46 of them were full-time researching, interviewing, and connecting with other teams. The other four were our drive team.

I'm probably coming off as a bit defensive, and that's because I am, because without my team having the opportunity to come to Championships, our team would have never had the impetus to change, to become better. We came because the judges thought we inspired our community, and we left with nothing less than a desire to spread the incredible enthusiasm from both effective and non-effective robots and teams that we saw at Championships to our community. To me it's incredibly offensive to insinuate that our lackadaisical robot design somehow prevents us from spreading our enthusiasm to others.

I love FIRST and I love what it stands for, but I would have never been as enthusiastic and motivated as I am now if I hadn't had the opportunity to see the incredible field at Championships last year, and this year. Our local competition isn't always the most inspiring. Like most "low-competitiveness" regionals, we have a fair share of robots that struggle to even drive, much less shoot or effectively load frisbees. There's a reason that a large proportion of Minnesota regional winners aren't from Minnesota. There's something to be said about low levels of competition inspiring low levels of improvement. When you were born and raised in a ditch it's sometimes difficult to see out of it.

Chairman's, Engineering Inspiration, and Rookie All Star are all incredibly important awards for FIRST because it enables teams that would not otherwise be able to to see the absolutely incredible nature of FIRST at the highest level. It's important not to forget that the majority of FRC teams are struggling to even field a robot at all, much less compete. Maybe "rainbows and unicorns" isn't the way to go, but it clearly isn't the direction that FIRST has chosen-- winning EI, Chairman's, or RAS takes serious work. It's belittling to claim that these teams are any less representative of what FIRST is about that teams that build incredible robots year after year.

I don't put much stock in teams attending Championships in purely a spectator fashion either-- it separates you by another degree from the life of the competition. I love FIRST and I love competition, and I hate seeing people complaining about teams that are, essentially, the majority of FIRST teams mucking up the finals. FIRST isn't a science fair, but it also isn't a basketball tournament. Sporting events are not designed for upward mobility, but by its nature, FIRST has to be. You don't change culture by putting down eighty percent of your teams.

I'm going to step down from my soapbox now. I don't believe anything I've written should be construed as disparging competitive teams, and I don't intend it to. If it comes of that way to you, I'll do my best to discuss it with you in a gracious and professional manner.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Can you break down Regional Winner/Wild Card by alliance captain/first pick/second pick?

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

What's "inspiring" for me isn't going to a high-production value competition with really awesome robots. I don't actually care about all the loud music, crowds, big ceremonies, etc. Basically all the stuff that makes it similar to a sporting event. I go to competitions to compete with the robot I sunk hundreds of hours into (and this 10+ hours every day of spring break). For me, it's about about the engineering challenge. I don't want a "magical rainbow and unicorn filled experience", I want a competitive championships that showing the best robots. In 2011 and 2012, my team was definitely not championship quality, yet last year we went to championships. I'm certain there were many other teams with much better robots. Team 1662 comes to mind as an example from this year. They were one of the best, if not the best, individual robot at Sacramento, but they were upset and didn't get a spot at championships. I'd like for teams such as 1662 to be able to go to championships even if they don't win. Right now, championship qualification matches are nowhere near as competitive as MSC, which doesn't seem right.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Sure, but it'll have to wait until I'm done with finals (Wednesday night). Between now and then, if anyone wants to do it themselves, PM me and I'd be happy to share my work. I just don't have that data off-hand.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Championship will always be limited by those pesky real world constraints of time, space and money. I would like to see the problem solved a different way. Instead of having to go to championship to get the experience, bring the experience to teams that didn't qualify, or team members that couldn't attend, or family and friends that want to support their home team. How many people in this world actually get to attend a superbowl in a lifetime? Very few, but most of the population participates via technology (it’s beyond TV at this point) and feels inspired yearly. FIRST needs to continue to follow the sports model and support the fan base. At least they had the webcast on the homepage this year during championship, although getting to the scores was a few layers deep into the site.

In order to put on the most inspirational show, you need competitive teams. The district model is a good step in the right direction because it rewards well rounded teams with bids to the championship. I always thought an interesting twist on the points system would be that teams which did not get to go to the Championship the previous year started with some fraction of their points. This way if you are a team that is getting close every year, but missing qualifying, you get a chance to go. You still have to earn a significant amount of points, but not quite as many as a team that went the previous year.

Overall, my thought is teams should not just be going to get inspired, they should have performed well enough to earn a spot. However, FIRST should do better at showing off these outstanding teams and experience to the world and convincing the rest of the organization (and world) who is not in attendance to be inspired.

To those who have posted they went and were inspired, what part inspired you? Could that inspiration be closely match via a video camera?

-EOB

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I've only highlighted a portion of your post because I don't want to clutter up the whole thread but I couldn't agree with the entire thing more, especially this last bit.

On Chief Delphi, we often forget about the majority of FIRST. I met a girl in my 'class of 2017' Facebook group who loved FIRST and was the captain of her team but had no mentors, hadn't read the manual completely by week 4, and asked me "what is Chief Delphi". CD is an amazing resource but I feel like the teams who have members active on here tend to perform above that of the average team - whether it is because of CD or the better teams frequent here - is a question we can't really answer.

There is nothing wrong with elite teams and their highly respected members here wanting the Championship to be an event with the very best possible competition.

However, we as a community have to admit that there are still quite a lot of latent issues with powerhouses dominating regional's. I come from a team where a couple years ago we complained to no end about 'NASA teams' and the like. There are many FIRSTers who do not have the same gracious spirit Chief Delphi's norms and culture have impressed upon me and still have the same feelings about 'mentor built' robots I did when I was a freshman. The issue isn't that these teams dominate regional's, it is that so many people refuse to be inspired by them and instead just complain.

A great way to perpetuate that and not have the majority of FIRST evolve is by quarantining the best teams at Championships and not letting the rest of FIRST interact with them. There are some people who watch every single webcast and would watch Championships whether or not they were competing but I think we are deluding ourselves if we think that number is anything over 200. There are over a million involved in FIRST.

Our team has been to St. Louis twice in the last two years. Last year, we built a shooting robot but never made a single shot in the top basket. Luckily, we built an incredibly solid drive-train and managed to captain two alliances on Coopertition balancing alone (yeah we were one of those teams). We came to Championship on EI and seeded 88th but ended up being picked up in the second round by the second alliance as a dedicated defender/feeder/balancer. Making it to the Newton Division finals was one of the best things to ever happen to this team, inspiring us to do better.

This year, we won a regional as alliance captain for the first time in eight years. That said, we had a very lucky schedule and managed to make some very good picks in alliance selections. Before we got to St. Louis, we decided that in its current configuration our robot was not competitive to play in eliminations and needed some drastic improvements. To cut a long story short, the improvements crippled our robot, making us one of 'those robots'. However, this year's Championship meant so much to our team, especially with nearly a third of it of it (20+ seniors) graduating.

This year, I spent the majority of the Championship not in our pit but walking around with the future leaders on my team, learning from the likes of 16, 254, and 1718. I firmly believe that going to the Championship to be inspired is the best thing that can possibly happen to a team and taking away that opportunity just widens the gap between the elite and 'the 80%'.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Never. Watching a match is nothing compared to the chance to talk for a half hour with some guys from Cheesy Poofs about organizing their team, or the design process. I didn't watch any matches at Championships this year other than eliminations, instead electing to go out and talk with and make connections to the hundreds of teams at the competition. Listening to Karthik via Talkshoe is nothing compared to being in the room, listening to him as the crowded room is nearly dead silent. Watching via a video doesn't give you a chance to go to the City Museum after hours and run into someone, talk to them about FIRST for a half hour, and then see them and their family at the competition the next day (which happened to my this past weekend).

I don't think you can ever match the experience of championships via proxy. It could probably be very good, if they didn't just webcast matches, but also interviews and presentations and ceremonies, but it would never be closely matched. Championships is a magical experience.

That's just my two cents though.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I do agree to an extent that robots should be competitive if attending Championships but at the same time I also feel that the wait list allows some teams the opportunity to attend an event they would never make it to based on awards or competition. By allows these teams to attend it honestly can make a world of difference to a team. It can give them the kick in the butt and the connections and friends to turn a less productive team into a kick-butt one.

As a team, 1802 has only attended Championships once in 2008 and that was because we were the Cinderella alliance and won the GKCR. This experience as a high school junior changed my view on how we ran the team the next. It also let me interact with teams that I never had even heard of. Before that Championship's experience I only had local teams to reference from and look up to. Most commonly that was 1108, a now 7 time RCA team, because they were local and I had family on that team. If we had not graduated 8 seniors that year our next year may have gone a bit differently.

Our current team, to put it frankly, is uninspired. We have certain students that strive for excellence for the team and the mentor support to let it thrive but without the kids putting forth the work it will not happen. While I do not personally feel the team is Championship quality I feel the students would be inspired by attending and competing against truly amazing and awe-inspiring teams. Although we have not had the time and money for the team to attend we also would be skeptical of taking the team with their current levels of being uninspired because as much as I am currently in a "sink or swim" mentality when it comes to how the team functions, I do not want them to utterly fail. I think that would be counter-intuitive to what FIRST is about.

If the team had the time and the money I would put up an argument for the team to attend as spectators or volunteers while it is still in STL since it's only 4 hours away. That way they can see the teams who could inspire them, listen to the lectures/presentations and possibly get something out of it and see what they can achieve with a little determination and work.

If you cannot already tell to me the inspiration would not be just seeing competitive robots it is the experience as a whole. The teams you can interact and network with that are considered elite, from another country or even just the HoF teams; the matches you can watch; the presentations and what you can learn; being exposed to all the FIRST programs under one roof. It's every aspect that is inspiring not just a well performing robot.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

This reminded me of something brought up between some fellow FIRSTers and I. It wasn't necessarily any of our points of view, but it was brought up in our discussions:

What if only certain teams who qualify for champs via robot performance (ie regional winners, rookie all-star, etc.) were allowed to compete in matches, and teams that qualify in a non-robot-performance way are still invited for chairman's presentations, exhibitions, etc. Basically, let the teams who proved themselves during the competition season compete in what they excelled at, and let the teams who were outstanding representatives of FIRST compete in what they excelled at. That way, everyone who qualifies can go, and even those teams with a robot not at championship-competition caliber can still experience the championship event and compete in their own competition (chairman's, EI, etc.).

Multiple friends of mine who have gone to championships but didn't do the best in matches have told me that what inspired them the most was the atmosphere. The events, the presentations, the people, and the robots. What inspired them wasn't seeing their own team win a lot of matches, but experiencing the FIRST championship as a whole.

This is just an idea that we came up with. It's not any of our main points of view, but it's something.

My personal thoughts: FIRST needs to celebrate all kinds of teams: Those who perform above and beyond in the robot portion of the game, and those who perform above and beyond in the outreach portion. However, FRC is a robotics competition, and I want to see the highest-quality matches at the championship event. Watching a championship qualifier with low scores and little action doesn't excite me. I know Dean has said "it's not about the robots", but amazing robot matches is what we all want to see. If FIRST were a tree-planting competition, I wouldn't be here right now.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Our team has a guideline: "if our robot does not make eliminations at a regional, we don't go to championships." Does not matter what award we win that gets our ticket, we won't go. We never have enacted it but it does put pressure on us to make a good robot. However, you might want to ask me again if we do qualify with a robot that did not make eliminations. This is an untested guideline.

Now, when I was on 766 this topic was heavily debated, in 05 I actually thought we should not go to champs despite wining a regional, of course we wound up going and got to win archimedes with 217 and 245. However all future times 766 qualified was by being the last pick of the alliance or via wait list. It sparked debate if we should even go if we were the 3rd member of the alliance. Its always the debate between going to champs, or investing the money for next year.

I just want explain there are team out there who debate this. You may ask, "why on earth would a team decline to attend if they earned it?" Well, i my opinion, and this is just my opinion. I have a duty to inspire and teach next year's members too. Sometimes tough decisions are made. I held a philosophy that a powerful way to inspire someone is to teach them. To give them power to change their surroundings. The line to go or not to go is different for every team. Ours choices reflect our philosophies. For us we debate the rewards of going versus the rewards of staying. The opportunities created by saving money could greatly out weight attending championships. If I could teach student better for the next 4 years by saving that money, now I have to consider it.

So to ultimately answer this question, I will modify a Muhammed Ali quote. Competitions are won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the computer, in the garage, and out there on the road, long before under those lights. In those long hours, is where we find inspiration in ourselves. For what inspires is not another's feats, but realize we have the power in ourselves to achieve that feat.

Thus I would make the championships more competitive for I chose to inspire my students by giving them strength. I know not all my student are inspired and there is more work to done. To achieve our duty, we don't need to be at championships.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I think there's value in letting a limited number of teams attend, despite their poor gameplay performance. Some of them are the winners of major judged awards—and I don't think these slots are particularly contentious. As for the ones who lack other redeeming characteristics and frankly drag down the level of competition (some qualify via the waitlist, while others are the weakest links in regional-winning/wildcard finalist alliances), as long as there aren't too many of them, I don't really mind.

One reason is the opportunity for spreading the inspiration around. I think others have amply argued that case. I think it's clearly plausible enough that FIRST should try to quantify its value and take that into account for the foreseeable future.

There's another reason, which is perhaps a bit more controversial, because it goes to the heart of what we expect a championship to be. At every other FIRST event, save perhaps the Michigan championship, there are several of these less successful teams. Through what might charitably be called entropy (less charitably: bumbling failure), they introduce uncertainty into the outcome. Uncertainty in appropriate measure is what distinguishes strategic, replayable games like poker or Magic from dreary algorithmic recitations like Sudoku or chess.¹ I support the proposition that FRC is made better by the good teams having to overcome the obstacle of dealing with the bad ones.

It's like NASCAR vs. Formula 1: F1 is clearly the superior form of racing from a technical and strategic perspective, but over the last 20 or so years, has lost much of the uncertainty that comes from outlandish tactics and mechanical failures. By contrast, people watch NASCAR because of the crashes and the passing—things which are only made possible by the fact that the cars are bloated and archaic, and the tendency of the subset of drivers who are less skilled to make stupid mistakes that rearrange the running order by suddenly eliminating whole swaths of contenders. That sort of uncertainty makes it a little more rational to root for the underdog, and it also gives symbolic meaning to the competition—the winner is triumphing over both the competition and fate itself. A competition structure that better captures that balance is a major reason why the 24 Hours of Le Mans is better than either one.

In FRC, the moderate likelihood that entropy will strike down any given opponent makes the competition more fun (in aggregate) than if the best robot is always going to be the clear winner. It gives hope to the ones who fall short of greatness, and keeps the great ones from getting complacent about their odds of victory.

Make no mistake, I enjoy seeing robots dominate on technical and strategic merits (e.g. 47 in 2000, 71 in 2001 and 2002, 111 in 2003, etc.). I just don't think that their ability to rightfully succeed is diminished by the presence of a few lower-calibre robots.² The odds strongly favour the idea that at least two of the FRC champions will have earned that result based on a clear history of technological and strategic achievement, and that all of the champions will have demonstrated those characteristics throughout the elimination rounds.

In the end, the Championship is mostly about showing off the best robots and best strategies. But you don't need to include the almost-as-good robots to prove that these are the best. Also, by allowing teams that exemplify other FIRST values to attend, along with their bad robots, FIRST provides fuel to power its engine of entropy. Conveniently, those teams with bad robots can still have a valuable experience by being in the presence of so many good robots, and by participating in the other activities that the FRC Championship offers them (from the conference to the socializing). This comes at the expense of the teams who have robots that are almost good enough, but now that FRC is as big as it is, there will always be teams left out—admitting them only shifts that painful burden to another team that didn't quite make it.

¹ You don't have to be particularly mentally dexterous to have a clear idea of how chess can be won—and this high degree of certainty combined with the reality of inadequate computational resources sucks most of the fun out of it. In fact, the real challenge is in solving it efficiently, not in actually playing the game.
² Provided that there are enough matches to adequately rank the divisions. Too few matches, and the competition suffers from outlier effects—which are distinct from entropy effects and are less desirable because they represent uncertainty due to a structural limitation of the event, rather than uncertainty due to surprises encountered during gameplay.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Out of curiosity, how much experience do you have actually playing chess?

Because I live with a FIDE master. Who is also a (winning) poker player. Who would take a whole lotta issue with this statement.

Mind, this has little bearing on your actual point - I'd just be careful with the broad-brush statements.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Let's not forget that one of the greatest chances for inspiration lie with the shear number of people gathered in one place. If you come to Champs and do not stroll through the pits sucking up inspiration from everyone you see and talk to, you are missing one of the best opportunities of your life.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

The reigning VOY speaks truth. Having been to two championships as a spectator, I have to admit I have not spectated any qualification matches. There is simply too much awesome in the convention center-half of the Championship experience. Strolling through the FRC, FTC, FLL, JFLL pits - I could (and have) spent days simply talking to kids and watching them get absolutely geeked about their work. Checking out Sponsor Row and seeing the awesome opportunities that wait - did anybody else notice that the President and CEO of Rockwell Automation was the guy handing out the yoyos at their booth? Multinational companies - world leaders in their fields - are fighting just to get an audience with these kids.
The experience of CMP isn't competition-only. Sure, there are great amounts to be learned by standing shoulder-to-shoulder with 111's drive team, or strategizing with 610. But at every event - district to offseason - the real gem is in the eliminations, and FRC is at the point scouting-wise where aside from the picking captains, we all realize that rank doesn't matter.

Another way of looking at it - compare how FTC teams get invited to championships. There's no end to the crying of how unfair that process is.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

If First doesn't remain stagnant at the current # of total teams and grows as they want to, there is going to come a point where things have to change. Being in a district model (MAR), I believe the first step is going to the district model entirely. This as has been discussed in other threads is a major task. Then a district championship event can take on more of a worlds experience. This would allow more teams to share the experience as First grows.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Cory has a good point and can get his way* with just three mere words: I.R.I.

- No automatic HOF invitations
- No Original and Sustaining Invitations
- No invitations back just because a team did well last year

Make it an official FIRST event with no CA/EI/RAS (it practically is already...). Problem solved. IRI is so fun to watch, I bet we could even get ESPN, PBS, HBO, or some other network to broadcast it. And no snarking on PBS...

*Cory doesn't strike me as a guy who likes Unicorns or Rainbows, so I'm guessing he'd rather that Champs be purely a merit-based event...

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

This has been a really interesting thread to follow, with some good points.

I am interested to know how your team came up with this guideline because its actually pretty intriguing.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Just to clarify a bit on the behalf of 4451 (and to further your point), at Orlando they were the first pick by the #2 alliance (us). They did not lose based on their performance, they lost based on our performance. We picked them to score 54 points in each match and they did so in all nine elimination matches we played. If we hit our autonomous in finals 2 (or made the one shot we bounced off the bar), they would have qualified based on being a regional champion. Based on this, I don't think it's necessarily fair to lump them into the category of "rookie along for the ride at championships". I'm sure there are others that have similarly high performance.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Personally, I don't think this would be good. I think the RAS/EI/CA teams would feel very left out. It also assumes that those teams do not have good robots. We won RCA in 2010, but were also in the quarterfinals at regionals, and an alliance captain on Curie that year (with, literally, a box on wheels mind you!)

I dig this idea, if you want competitive matches, IRI will deliver.

----------

If we're going to say that the Chairman's Award is the most prestigious and important award in FRC. And that the CA recognizes a model team that others should look up to and learn from, then I don't see how we could possibly suggest not giving CA winners a spot at CMP.

If we want less teams at CMP, the waitlist is the first thing that has to go. I don't know why anybody would suggest cutting teams that do amazing things, work hard, and actually qualify for CMP over teams that are, essentially, buying their way in.

I totally agree that 100 teams was too many, and 8 matches sucked. But honestly, the "elite" teams with fantastic robots still rose to the top. Yeah, maybe the rankings were skewed and who exactly was alliance captain was thrown off a little from what it would have been. But the finals were full of those elite teams.

Yeah, we were one of those robots this year, we went to CMP for RCA.
So I'm sorry that our robot might have brought yours down a little, but hey, the winning alliance from Curie was still all "elite" teams anyway, what difference did it really make?

Sorry if I come off as defensive or angry, it's because I'm defensive, and a little angry.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

This is still an open-minded civil discussion, nobody is saying anyone has the wrong opinion. :)

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

The difference between 400 teams 8 matches and 360 teams 9 matches is not just each team get one match difference. That does not seem like a lot. However the whole purpose of qualifying round is to bubble up the deserving teams to be alliance captains.

I am neutral on the topic on which teams should be invited to the championship. To me that is not as important. I see both sides of the argument and both are valid. What is important in my viewpoint is to bubble up the deserving teams to be alliance captains so they can pick good robots as their partners and have an awesome and competitive elimination round to make it exciting.

Having 400 teams and 8 matches will not allow only derseving teams to be alliance captains. A weak alliance captain who gets there due to luck of schedule will not be able to put together a competitive alliance and the elimination match will be one sided. 360 teams with 9 matches is still not ideal but is a lot better.

To people who says it is not about the robot and championship is a showcase, celebration or science fair, I have this to say. I have no problem with teams with varying capability at the championship. However qualifying round means just that. The best teams should qualify for elimination round. They should be alliance captains. Hence the number of teams and matches per team must allow this to happen. Otherwise, why have qualifying and elimination rounds. We can just all show up and play some friendly matches to showcase and celebrate. And to take it to the extreme, why even bother to keep score!

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

This brings up an important point about the inspiration of competition. Yes, Worlds can be inspiring to all teams in and of itself. "Lower level" (however you'd like to define it) teams can learn a lot and be motivated to work harder and try more simply by attending.

But what about the teams that are already that inspired and worked their tails off to make the best robot they've ever made? Organizing a qualifying round that can't give them a fair shot can--and has, I heard to examples just this year--led to students on the verge of the "next level" becoming demotivated and uninspired. If you put all that work in and get hurt by the number of quals and your allies' caliber, is it any surprise that some students lose faith? Is more always better*, or is it such a stretch to see the uninspiring downsides?

*Note that I'm not saying 400 is necessarily too many or 8 is necessarily too few. (I happen to believe that's so, but I'm more concerned about the concept than the threshold.)

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Relatively little. Enough to know that I don't particularly like it. It's hard to be enthusiastic about a game which the principal challenge is in out-computing the opponent.

I know enough people who are clearly better than I am at that kind of computation, and doubt my own ability and motivation to hone my skills to that level; competing against them is no fun, and the outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. By contrast, competing against fellow novices is a less banal undertaking, specifically because we don't know what we're doing and/or can't be bothered to try to play efficiently—and that kind of outlook virtually guarantees we'll never be any good at it, even if we have somewhat more fun.

As I hinted at before, for those who enjoy programming, it's more fulfilling to focus on something that people are good at—conceiving and implementing efficient algorithms and effective heuristics—while offloading the computational chores to a computer. Chess makes a better computer science problem than it does a game.

I'm not asserting that these are mutually exclusive skills. Poker is nice because, in addition to valuing computational ability (expected values of hands given the situation), it traditionally emphasizes the ability to interpret your opponents' behaviour and incorporates a high degree of uncertainty in individual hands (which can be won or lost independently of your ability to master the game). It's that uncertainty that allows a novice to have fun playing against an expert, because there's a plausible chance that they'll win any given hand, even when the odds are against them.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Quite the contrary, they tend to go hand-in-hand. I can tell you from personal experience that poker is pervasive through a large portion of the chess community; I doubt this is purely coincidence.

Interestingly, winning poker players complain about variance, probably more than anything else. Probably falsely so; it's the variance that keeps the fish playing and allows them to make money, but it is simultaneously the single most frustrating part of the game. It no longer contributes to "fun" once you reach a certain skill level - at best, it's a necessary evil.

This is certainly true, and is the likely the sole reason poker is such a profitable game.

I could discuss this at length, but I fear this is going off-topic. At any rate, I do not think the introduction of randomness into FRC championships is the proper motivation for allowing teams with less-than-impressive robots to attend nationals; at most, it's a secondary effect. What is important is the experience afforded to those teams, the and the very real beneficial effects they see as a result of it. This must be weighed against the logistics of the competition itself, and the result is, as others have mentioned, essentially an optimization problem. I am of the opinion that the balance ought to be in favor of including more teams rather than optimal competitiveness; this seems to best match both my experience at championships and my conception of what the entire purpose of FIRST is.

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).

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Ok, here's an 'outside the box' idea.

Any team that qualifies on something other than on-field performance and has a sub-par robot (self assessed) that they'd rather not take to CMP has the option of recruiting another team and partnering with them.

The other team must: 1) Not have been to CMP the prior year, 2) Not yet qualified for CMP in the current year. 3) Be willing to join up with the recruiting team.

If the second team in a later event wins its own right to CMP, the original team can then try to recruit another team (They may want to have an alternate already recruited if the first pick still has regionals to attend.)

The drive team is made up of two members from each team. The pit crew should also be split.

Only the initial team is eligible for off field awards at CMP. The performance records are credited to the Bot's team.

Its up to the two teams to coordinate and agree on things like travel/lodging costs/methods, pit organization, scouting, etc.

This allows the winning team to go to CMP, show off what made them great (EI, RCA, RAS) via PIT displays, etc. and the average bot caliber is increased. Teams with great bots that had bad luck might still be picked and be able to show off their bot.

If this basic idea has merit, I'm sure there are details that can be added/improved and lots of open questions.

Thoughts?

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Interesting...

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

So, say 801 picked 1592, would it be 801 competing or would it be 1592 because it's their robot?

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Why does the crappiest player on the baseball/football/basketball team get to go the world series/superbowl/finals ?

The three teams have formed an "Alliance." They act as one and are awarded as one once the eliminations are started. Of course, one could then argue that the CMP should just be the same alliances sticking together rather than random alliance pairings during Quals, but logistically that gets very messy -- one team can't go, how are teams earning spots not as part of a winning alliance get partnered up?

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Logistically, 1592's bumpers are on the field, so that's how it would be registered on the real time-score, but ideally, the real-time score and other places as appropriate would list both team numbers. The Emcee would explain during the first few matches (and again on eliminations if they advance) how the 'double-team' was formed-- this would serve to spread the message of GP, teams working with teams, and other aspects of FIRST.

Just my thoughts, obviously, there is lots of room for debating the particulars.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Just because a robot was a second pick doesn't mean they are of any less value to the alliance.

Lets say you're an alliance captain, and for your chosen strategy, you want a fast cycler, and a good FCS. So through scouting, you narrow it down to 1986 for your cycler, and 148 as your FCS (Just choosing teams at random here). And lets say that nobody else is going to pick them (for some reason :p). You only get one pick at a time, so you can't pick them simultaneously, so you have to pick one and then the other.

If you pick 148 first, does that mean 1986 isn't a good robot?

If you pick 1986 first, does that mean 148 isn't a good robot?

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Sports teams don't pick each other. FRC teams pick other FRC teams out of necessity by the game. I understand your point though. I'm just concerned that it brings in some teams that really don't deserve to go. In Calgary, 2 teams got tickets to worlds without being able to drive...

Don't worry, I'm aware of that. We were in that exact position last year, and to a certain extent this year as well.

It's just frustrating seeing some teams with a ticket to worlds who might have spent 100 hours, while others who have spent >200 don't have a ticket. Wildcards are nice, but for teams that only go to week 1 events, it really does suck.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Please realize that there's a big difference between the following two statements:
1) Only the winning alliance captain and their first pick should qualify for the Championship in order to keep the number of teams manageable.
2) The second pick doesn't really deserve to go to the Championship.

Personally, I could live with not sending the 2nd pick, but I definitely would NOT say that they don't deserve to go. Similar logic applies to the Rookie All Star - sure, I think they deserve to go, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't send the finalist alliance captain or the finalist alliance first pick before the RAS, were I given control over everything.

Not taking the winning alliance's second pick would get awkward when 8th seed alliances win since the 8th and 9th picks are essentially equal. In my opinion, 8th alliance second picks should be an exception if FIRST ends up deciding that the second pick is a place where they can make the Championship less crowded. It wouldn't be a huge number of extra spots - possibly less than the number of backup robots that currently qualify as the 4th bot on a winning alliance.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

The district system handles the 2nd pick problem nicely.

Sustained solid performance plus a win as a 2nd pick will score you enough points to make it to champs. However, just winning as a 2nd pick and performing poorly otherwise doesn't get you there.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I am only a parent, but to me, Championships (and FIRST) is about Inspiration. I think the focus is right where it needs to be, on INSPIRATION. If FIRST wanted to concentrate on the WINNING: 1) Teams wouldn't be playing 3 on 3 with the whole winning alliance earning a trip to Championships. (I realize the district model is moving FIRST away from this.) 2) They would level the playing field and there would be MORE RULES about build season, such as a certain percent of the work needs to be done by students or mentors or more restrictions on custom made parts. 3) They wouldn't design a seeding structure that is primarily based on win/lose and not by points scored. 4) They wouldn't give slots to RCA , RAS and EI teams. I could go on, but I'll stop there. I think FIRST knows what they are emphasizing at Championships, and they aren't looking to have only the best robots on the field. They want to inspire as many diverse groups of kids as they can. And they won't do that if it's just about robot performance.

My sons' team is wrapping up their fourth year in FRC. Their rookie year was very successful, winning RAS at two events and they were VERY successful at championships. The next year, they were awarded an RCA and won an event, and were pretty successful at Championships. The third year was rough, they had a great bot but bad luck and they didn't make it to Championships. This year, they had a decent bot but got EI and went to Championships with a middle of the road bot. We were probably one of those teams that brought the average down. We've had lots of turn over on the team this year and most of the kids had not been to Championships until this year. I am certain it was one of those experiences that will make a difference in the team's direction over the next few years. They needed to see the possibilities and see how they can work to grow the program. They are pretty charged up right now and that's a good thing!

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Well, unless you're that loser that wins the District Championship as 2nd pick.


Then you end up on Einstein. ;)


In all seriousness, I like the district model's way of handling second picks--we'd just have to try that much harder. I think a similar point system could work even outside of districts themselves.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

The good news is, by 2015 there will be at least 4 more districts: 2 District systems in California, 1 in New England, and 1 for MD/DC/VA. After seeing what districts have done to the level of play in other regions of the country, I can't wait :cool:

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

You're forgetting Minnesota and possibly Indiana/Illinois.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Add PNW to that list as well I think.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Wow that would have really sucked for us in 2010. We were 359 and 100's 2nd pick when we won in San Diego as the 22nd pick. after SD, we ended up losing in LA in the finals after four matches..

Luckily we get to go to champs. As we ended up going undefeated on Newton, captaining the 1 seed with 67 and 177 and then taking out the unbeatable alliance of 1114 and 469.....

Bottom line... never ever discount 2nd picks you never know how they will improve.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

While I can understand where you're coming from, ask yourself why the 3rd robot on an alliance plays on Einstein, like you had the chance to. Yes it is a higher level of competition, but the principle remains the same, in my opinion.

Certainly isn't the 3rd best robot in the division. They get to play because its an alliance. Also, its easy for you to gauge out on the field if the 3rd bot doesn't perform as much as its partners, but that certainly doesn't mean the team didn't work just as hard as others, but within their own means. 1640 has won two MAR championships in a row as the third bot, and districts/regionals as a third bot (if I recall correctly) but they've always earned the right to attend.

Adam does make a good point about districts helping to ease this concern, but I think others might be judging the discussion of the 3rd bot on an alliance way too irrationally.

Similarly, saying that the 3rd bot on a regional winning alliance doesn't "deserve" to play at champs is a pretty bold statement.

Stuff like this happens-

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I didn't fully appreciate what third robots do. I've done some thinking and I can see why I was too quick to blame them as the problem.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

The other thing is that some robots aren't designed to be captains or first picks. A robot like 4334's last year was designed to be the ideal 2nd pick. It was simple and effective, and it did exactly what it was built to do. To eliminate a category of defensive or support robots from championship would undermine the efforts of teams that build excellent robots that serve purposes other than offense.

That's why 4334 was on Einstein last year.
That's also why they won IRI.

Third picks can make or break alliances at more difficult regionals and especially at championships.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

This is why I like the idea of districts. It takes into account many more factors than previously possible. This cumulative ranking system allows teams to go based on their program, outreach, robot performance, and much more. Then, teams that were good enough to be the top 8 but not necessarily on the winning alliance - and we're consistently performing at a moderate level - get to go to championships. As others have said earlier, this allows the best and most consistent teams to go through to championships.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I haven't read this entire thread, so pardon if this has already been discussed. Why are we limiting ourselves to solutions that focus on inspiring those inside the FRC community? Shouldn't we also be taking into account those outside, that will stay outside, but still can be inspired by FIRST?

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

What about this to maximize the number of matches per team at CMP: two fields per division? It could let teams play 16 (!!!) matches in quals, and still let CMP both grow and maintain the current divsion setup.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Sounds too simple.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

We'll see 8 divisions before we see Double Division Fields.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Unlikely that Minnesota will be on districts by then. I can't speak for Indiana/Illinois (though I've heard they were considering it next year???).

Don't get me wrong, Minnesota will be on Districts eventually-- possibly even sooner than I can predict, but we simply don't have the volunteer infrastructure to make it happen reasonably.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I think the same is going to happen to eastern Canada in a year or two. This, like wild cards, will help great Canadian teams succeed.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

Looking like 2015.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I did not attend the championship in my rookie year in 2011 for various reasons, but I made sure to go after winning the Arizona Regional in 2012.

My favourite part about the 2012 CMP wasn't getting to compete with and against amazing robots (although that was cool too). It was going to the pits and seeing all the teams and how every single robot did something just a little bit different than all the others. Overall, I learned a lot and saw some awesome things.

By the time the 2013 season rolled around and we won the BAE Granite State Regional, I realized that I didn't want to win a regional to compete at the championship, but so I'd get the opportunity to see all of the amazing displays and teams that I missed the last time around, and to revisit some of the teams I met the year before.

I know that if I go back to the championship next year it won't be competition I'll be looking for, but, like these past 2 years, inspiration. For me, inspiration is what makes the championship event as awesome as it is

I personally really like the wait list, as it gives teams and people who may otherwise never have a chance to compete or go to the championship an amazing opportunity.
Also, I really like the wildcard system, although this may be due to my experience in southern Ontario. 2056 and 1114 make really awesome robots, and win a lot of regionals, and they completely deserve their trips to the championship year after year. There are many teams, however, that are not quite good enough to beat them, but would still put forth a great showing at the championships. 1310 is a great example of a team in this situation.

Overall, I really like the systems and championship event we currently have.



In terms of competition, I agree with those who have said that IRI is the place for it. Practically every team in the elimination rounds is part of a "How did those teams get together?" alliance, and it's a ton of fun to watch.

Re: Championships: Competition vs. Inspiration
 

I agree with so many of your statements. In 2004 my son was president of a rookie team. The team's robot did not perform well, and even if it did the funds would not have been there to attend Championship. The school did not allow students to go to World in Atlanta unless the team had won an award and was invited. I made a "Mom" decision to take off work and call him in sick and take a road trip to Atlanta rather than miss the opportunity to see what the FIRST World Championship was really about. (Otherwise it would have been an unexcused absence with no ability to do make up work.)
To say this was a life changing experience would minimize the impact of this trip. My son attended NEMO workshops, visited the Hall of Fame, witnessed award winning robots and Chairman's teams, made friends with team members from around the country that he later corresponded with through Chief Delphi, and took in the whole Championship experience. He brought back the knowledge to his team, and his community, and later brought an award winning team to Championships. He has served as a college mentor, works now for a company who sponsors the team he mentors and has volunteered as a proud alumni for many years now.
I believe there are students who will never have the opportunity to experience the magic of championship because they will never be on one of the award winning teams attending. Worse, they will never get the chance to go to World Championship where they are most likely to learn how to build a championship team.
I would like to see some teams go as "Inspire teams" even if it means without a robot. Perhaps other awards would allow them to attend (without the robot) and if invited in an official capacity, the schools would allow them to go. Perhaps a contingency of 6 to 15 student leaders, a teacher and mentor and the fee would be less since they would have less students and come without a robot. Or perhaps charge per student a minimal cost to be in the Inspire group. The fees would include special invitation only experiences, meet and greets and workshops and also a guide and time schedule for attending all the other important elements of the Championship experience. (Hall of Fame, Scholarship Row, NEMO workshops, a trip through the pits, Chief Delphi workshop, Finale,and so on.) Even better, add more informative workshops for future Alumni, motivational speakers, how to get scholarships, how to brand the team, etc.

Often, even team members who have attended championship for years don't get to experience all the opportunities because of all the tasks which must be performed while participating in the robot competition. On the other hand, there are members of teams who work tirelessly for their teams but never have a chance to go to Championship like the experienced award winning teams. I would like to see that opportunity open up to those individuals. Attending World Championship with or without a robot - PRICELESS!