![]() |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Increasing championships from 400 to 600 teams was an enormous decision by FIRST that affects FLL, FTC and FRC. This most recent one is just mind boggling and so soon. We havent even had a chance to play in this year's Championship event with 8 divisions and 2 Einstein fields.:ahh: |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I've looked at the blog post at the beginning of this thread. I read through it several times. Each time, I knew it struck me as odd. I just couldn't put my finger on what seemed wrong with it.
Reading through the various posts and the various reactions to this announcement, it's clear that a lot of people have a fundamentally different view of this changed format for championship events, but it has taken me a while to understand why those views seem so different. I think I'm starting to get it. Maybe I can explain, and maybe in explaining I can help myself to understand it more deeply. My realization about why there seemed to be a disconnect between those who support the “two championship” model and those who are put off by it began with this sentence. “Fundamentally, this change to two Championships is about making the Championship experience more accessible to more teams.” After reading those words about seventeen times or so, the light bulb finally went on. An awful lot of people think that “the championship experience” ends at the stadium door. Frank notes that if this move is successful, and based on reasonable growth projections, 25% of the teams will be able to participate at one of the two new events. That means 75% of the teams will not be able to participate. What does that mean for those teams? Does it mean that those teams can’t have a championship experience? I disagree. We watch the matches. We follow the scores. We cheer on from afar. We talk with our friends. Moreover, every time we take to the floor in a district match, I feel like we are participating in the championship experience. We are on a road that we hope ends at the championship, and maybe Einstein Field, and maybe.....dreams are fun.I can’t say what First ought to do. There’s an awful lot of factors involved. There are logistic issues, and media issues, and just plain physical space. There are travel costs and school days and goodness knows whatever other considerations have to be made in planning an event. No matter what happens, some people aren’t going to like the outcome, and nothing will be perfect. I would just like the decision makers in First to be mindful of the impact of their decisions on all of the First community, and of all the people that we want to be part of the First community, and of all the people who are not part of the first community, but whom we wish to inspire anyway. Think outside the walls. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Since people have now had time to gather their thoughts and evaluate the situation, AND since the town hall is a little over a week away, it's probably a good time to step back and reestablish exactly WHAT impacts the "two championship" model will have on the FIRST community. What I will ask, however, is that you evaluate the impacts compared to the "no action" alternative (this would be the existing, one championship model). You need a measuring stick to judge the two championship model by; that measuring stick is the one championship model, 2-5 years in the future. Here's and example of what I'm talking about: Let's look at the impact on event capacity and team representation, since discussion and research has made the constraining factors pretty clear. Two Champ Model: Moving to two championships would allow FIRST to grow event capacity to a maximum of 1200 teams attending the highest available level of competition. When regular program growth is assumed, this would allow for at least 25% of registered teams to actively participate at the highest available level of competition through 2018. No Action: Due to venue size constraint, maintaining the one championship model would limit the ability of FIRST to increase event capacity at the highest available level of competition. Current available information suggests that the highest reasonable event capacity for a single venue would be close to 600 teams. Regular year over year program growth would result in a decreasing percentage of registered teams actively participating at the highest available level of competition, as event capacity would not be able to keep pace with program growth. NOW, what are some other potential impacts? Here's ones I can think of, and everyone can evaluate these (and others) against the "No Action" alternative:
Please look at this from a program-wide perspective, as FIRST would. And, try your very best to be objective. In my example, I tried to evaluating increases and decreases in concrete things. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I dislike the fact that so many people choose to use the word "impact" so often nowadays because:
Blake, the grammar grump with a (vocabulary) word to the wise... ;) |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...day-Priorities Edit: Whoosh. You were referencing his pitchfork line. My bad. Regardless, there's the 2015 info. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:01. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi