![]() |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
FIRST has every right to decide on their general direction on their own. If you don't like it than what will you do? You could help them make as good as it can be or sit back and gripe. You can refuse to participate further as well. Those are some choices (not all?) you have the right now. But FIRST decided this is what the championship event they run for the competition they run should be like. So that's probably what they will be doing and they sure can if they want. PS: I'm not (didn't?) say you should quit I said that if it doesn't align with your philosophies then you don't have to stay with the program and complain, though that too is an option (clearly). |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
As a way of partially fixing this which requires little change: The Winning Alliance from whichever CMP event comes first will be given *free* entrance to the second CMP event where they will play the winning alliance thus crowning a world champion.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I posted this on another thread but it works for here.
As long as FIRST has no touching games like this year then it is just high score wins. In that case the highest score from one of the 2 championships would be the champ. All FIRST would have to do is make sure there are no common game pieces in the finals like the center cans. This maybe one of the reasons for this years game format. Having another play off for crowning the champ is hard on students. Some students need time in school to get the grades for the FIRST scholarships. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
I'm also not sure people agree on how much of a partial fix this is, except that it's very little. I haven't read or heard anyone that's upset simply that there are two championship alliances; they're upset that there are two because process of getting them is totally...ahem. A final showdown is essentially a red herring in the debate, being both so easy to promote and schedule (while difficult to execute) and so meaningless to the central issues. On the other poor hand, if this also actually meant that FRC will never bring back defense (through 2020), I think we all hope that we as a community can refrain from actually rioting at the Town Hall. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
If it's the latter, don't those robotics teams deserve a say in the direction of FIRST? They didn't get it prior to this announcement. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
I mean the non-profit USFIRST when I say FIRST. The staff and leadership. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
So you are right, but the non-profit decides how this championship we are arguing about is put on and know what they need to do to do it. We get some of it but they take main responsibility for the catalyst that we use to inspire so lets see before we start thinking about things like jumping ship. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
From what I see the championship is fundamentally the same but with more divisions and venue splitting allowing for a ~600 team cap for FRC instead of a ~400 team cap last year. That isn't much different from 2014 and subsequently prior years using the same basic structure. Thus they would be familiar with how the 2015 will work because it is structurally the same as what they have been familiar with. They made a system and duplicated a part (divisions) while shifting another (FTC/FLL) to make room. It's actually a good example of a systems/industrial engineering problem. Also this concept isn't incompatible with the split championship model and likely could be implemented at either with proper planing. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
"FIRST" is both of the entities you mentioned, and more. There is no "either/or" involved. An analogy would be that my body doesn't have a vital organ, it has vital organs. Blake |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
However, we should be doing our best to inform them of how any decisions they make affect us (as a whole). And, going along with that, they should be thinking of how any major decisions like this will affect teams, and effect the goals and mission of FIRST. This particular decision, and the manner of its carrying out, match up to some others they've done in the past. --FVC switching to FTC (result: teams with several $K invested in VEX stuff already did not enter FTC, and suddenly VRC had a really strong foundation to grow on) --The inaugural district area (result: MASSIVE outcry, questioning, complaining, etc. on a variety of issues. Now, 6 years later, the outcry is going the "other way"--instead of "why do they get them" it's "why don't we have them".) --Changing of control systems: '08-'09 rather than '14-'15. The former was mostly unannounced--we had a few months, as I recall, but beta teams were few in number, and it was rather sudden. The latter we knew was coming when FIRST put out a call for proposals roughly two years in advance, a call for alpha teams, and a call for beta teams. Slight difference in methodology, showing that they learned from a past mistake. If there's one thing FIRST takes away from this announcement and its fallout, it should be this: If a major change is coming up, consult the community, in some form, before making the announcement. "Test the waters" if you will, or in another manner, try to get a few key people on board first. At least hear their objections. THEN announce and work on answering other questions that crop up. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
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