![]() |
[FRC Blog] We're Listening
From http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...Were-Listening:
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Can I request that this be merged with the other thread in order to keep all the discussion in one place?
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Sounds like they wont be changing the region lock, so no seeing 1114 :/
Also sounds like there's still going to be one "better" championship. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I was about to post this actually! I was refraining in posting for the thread with the previous blog entry expecting a blog post like this.
As a person whose team has never been to champs (we almost went with the 2013 waitlist), I can see Frank's reasoning really well (I'm probably biased). Champs is a dream for every team, regardless of their skill, and this makes it a lot more possible. Teams won't be as deterred as easily once they face a bit of trouble because there's a bigger chance of reaching their Ultimate Goal. Of course winning shouldn't be an incentive as much as personal bests, but we all feel this way sometimes. Now all those thoughts about having the two championship winners competing against each other are possible. Robot joust anyone? edit: That's not to say everything is completely fine again forever and ever. People will still have concerns, but hopefully this way the concerns will be able to be touched upon and helped. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Have Faith in Frank! A solution will be found.
I think the community agrees that a True International Champion Alliance should be crowned. We just need to figure out how to do it in a way that will work elegantly. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Of course FIRST could have just stuck with the plan they laid out a few years ago and everything would have been just fine.... |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I like that they are listening, but it sounds like we are essentially redefining "Championships" to this often-bandied term "Super Regionals".
So instead of regionals and championships, we will have regionals (or districts), two winning alliances from two "regional championships", and then some form of match between those two for the real title of "World Champion". I like the passion that Frank has described for making sure as many students as possible make it to a championship. He has basically exactly described our team and our students. I think this concept will work if they acknowledge that these two regional championships are exactly that, regional championships, not dual world championships. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Being the overly optimistic person that I am, I have hope that these meetings and future endeavors by FIRST HQ will result in a more positive outcome than what everyone had originally panicked about yesterday. That being said, with all of my optimism, I still don't know how many people will stay involved with the program, or why they should. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Ugh, as much as I like Frank, this blog post just confirmed most of my biggest issues with the whole concept. Extremely disappointed.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
They are taking community feedback into account now, but the FIRST senior leaders should've consultes some of the FRC community members before booking venues and marching forward. I am still if the opinion that we can get the inspiration and recognition... at the district championship and super regional level. Worlds is definitely an amazing and inspirational experience. I certainly wouldn't be as active as I am if I hadn't gone to worlds in high school. But as FRC becomes more and more commonplace, I feel like we can bring that amazing experience to a more accesible, local level, while having one amazing championship.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
They want championships to be inspirational for people, but I can guarantee it won't be as inspirational when you only get to interact with half of the FIRST community.
I understand that they want to engage more people and allow them to see the championships as a team, the method they're going about doing this seems to me like it would cheapen the overall experience for everyone involved. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
After reading this blog post, I feel 0% better about this whole situation. FIRST has totally swung and missed on this.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Stop making champs less inspirational, and work on making DCMP's and Super Regionals more inspiring.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Asking for feedback after already making the decision is like a politician asking for their constituents' input after already voting for a law.
It's good that FIRST claims to be listening now, but I wish they would have asked sooner. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
While I understand expanding championships to more teams, I don't think 2 events is the solution. I like being able to meet and see all the great teams from Michigan, Canada, etc all at once. I'd much rather see one large championship with 800 teams. If we're already at 8 divisions, why not just add some more teams to each? I get the time and volunteer issues, but it seems like a better alternative to multiple championships. And just having the two winning alliances play each other doesn't solve much except possibly the "undisputed best of the season" issue, it still means we won't get to see all the cool designs and amazing students and mentors from around the world.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
This championship format is less inspiring and provides less inspiration for science and technology. The solution, in my personal opinion, is to make DCMPS's and SR's more inspiring. Raise the floor, don't lower the ceiling. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
How can we protest this move at Champs this year without being disruptive/disrespectful? The public meeting about double Champs is already going to be a disaster. I think it's important that FIRST understands in person how many people in the community are against this move, but its more important that we don't disrupt the experience for our students at this year's Championship. And please don't boo when they announce this at Champs (silence is just as effective). |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Is the town hall meeting being held in the main colloseum? Because at this rate it's going to need to be to handle all the people...
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I suspect the reason they made the announcement so suddenly was that FIRST HQ wanted to implement the Championshplit, but they decided that, as they saying goes, "it would be better to ask for forgiveness than ask permission". The sudden response asking for "our help" falls in line with this theory.
Disclaimer: This is my theory about this. My information isn't perfect, but from what I have, it is the best I can come up with. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Blog post title correction "We're listening... now"
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Lets work on getting those events to a high caliber level that provides incredible inspiration experiences to students. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
It's a start...
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
The elite Super teams are going to continue to not like this, along with most teams that have already been to championship. The teams that have not been to championship before may not care whether there is one or two places to go. They just are as excited either way.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Championship should be a place for the best teams and robots. If other events aren't inspiring enough then work on that. The Varsity "Sport" of the Mind needs to have a Championship that follows the model of other sports. The teams in the Championship earn their way there. The teams not there work hard and try to get better so they can be there one day. Teams that aren't good enough, they don't get to go. I'm sorry but that's real life. That's the mindset that needs to be propagated in my opinion. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I have mixed feelings about the change.
Everyone asks the question, "Why do I want to go to the Championships?" Obviously, to try and win the World Championships are a dream to many, but as Frank pointed out, its also to provide the other inspiring aspects that the Championship brings. But what exactly is that for every team? It'll vary from team to team. For me personally, its to be able to meet and converse with teams from around the world that have earned their spot to the event. Being geographically assigned to an event will never allow us to see 1/2 of the teams that make it to Champs (as it stands) ever. I wanted to suggest that the venue and divisions be "random" similar to how they do it now, so that its a crapshoot which event you get AND who you play with. However, I also realize teams could get very upset if they for example, live in Texas but get assigned to Detroit. Having 2 World Championships doesnt have an easy solution for this.... |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
You can make an argument that the teams we are trying to introduce to CMP wouldn't exist without the drive of a group of mentors, volunteers, and sponsors who have made things like easy to use control systems and kit drive bases possible. The people directly involved in building up FRC love FIRST because it's not only a way to positively impact and inspire students, but also a way to participate in a really cool competition. The drive to be the best has driven many of the innovations that has allowed FRC to be what it is today. If you take that goal away, what is there to strive for? Who wants to be a part of a competition where everyone is a winner? |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Reading through some of the comments, I wonder how people would feel about the following:
Detroit: Super District championship. No more District(or state) championships, but all the district winners/wildcard teams would advance from their districts (FIM,PWM,MAR, ect.) to Detroit. Matches would play out and we would crown a District championship alliance. Teams would continue to be ranked in their respective district systems and qualify worlds based on rank. Houston: Typical world championship with teams from across the globe, including teams that qualified at the super district championship. Just an idea considering I'm guessing FIRST now has contracts with both Detroit and Houston to bring 400+ teams to the city. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Well FIRST has defined what their purpose for championships is and how they want to achieve it. That much is their right. They have asked us to help them make it work and I say we should help.
If you don't think it aligns with your way of inspiring people than I guess FRC isn't for you? Because somehow this just won't inspire any new people ever again? |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I welcome this as a gesture of good will and a potential start to a solution, but the situation has not changed, and my disappointment is still in tact.
It's going to be my first time at St. Louis, but it seems like it's going to be an extra lively one! |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
That being said, is this 'fix' perfect as is? No, but there is still time to make those changes to make it a more enjoyable experience for those elite teams as well as the wait list, rookies, and first-time-attending teams. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I hope they do the same with the chairman's winners between the two as well.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Personally, im not excited. As for the rest of my team, they are on spring break, and they wont know till i say something about it. If i were to guess, The mentors will be torn between more chances but less inspiration on how to be better, the more "there for fun" people will be happy to get out of school if we make it, but the ones like me who are here to build, learn, be inspired, and compete, they wont like this setup, as there is less powerhouse teams to talk to and learn from, it will be more middle teams (like us) and ones who kind of just are along for the ride. *These are explicitly my views, not of my team, sponsors, and such.* |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
You know, the more time I spend in these topics, the more the argument that "Only big teams strongly dislike this proposal" is growing on me. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Given this is FIRST's new plan of attack, what happens when FIRST grows even more down the road. In order to keep the 25% they want? There will have to be a third world championship event and then a 4th. By that time they are basically super regionals with the false title of world championship. I don't understand why we would go through this convoluted route instead of just focusing on making super regionals in the first place. It's the same outcome and still keeps the bar high for teams to rise to.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Also, I've seen people in these threads with teams I've never heard of that also oppose this change. Anyone I've told about this that isn't directly involved in FIRST is real confused by the proposition as well. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
25% of teams?
Is that even a championship? Finger Lakes had 45ish teams at the regional. I honestly do not believe that the top 11 teams deserve to go to championships. Tech Valley had around 36 teams? I think? Not 100% sure. Around there. I do not believe the top 9 seeds deserve champs. We were around 12th, and we definitely didn't have a competitive robot compared to other teams. We kinda just got lucky with alliance performance and schedule. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I understand the impetus of trying to give as many teams as possible the championship experience. It makes sense to try to inspire as many teams as possible. All of these things are very positive outcomes of the proposed plan.
My fear (though details obviously have not been completely set in stone) is that this change will segregate the country. It would be weird to never even have the chance to interact with half the teams in the country. Several solutions that have been proposed would help ease my fears. Allowing teams with the means to "opt in" to the other championship would at least allow some of the cross-pollination that the current model offers in droves. I think the goal should be to move everyone to a district model and allow cross-district play. Districts would continue to feed in to a District Champ (or call it a Super-Regional), of which there would be 10-12. These then qualify teams for the World competition. This allows team (if they have the means) to travel outside their districts to inspire others. It also allows teams on the borders of the districts to decide to play elsewhere that may be more financially feasible. (Teams in the UP of Michigan can choose to play in Wisconsin or Minnesota, or teams just over the Indiana border from Chicago could choose to play in Illinois). Moving forward with the proposed model could put us in a situation where you are only able to see team from your district, or from your Championship group. This is the situation I would like to see avoided more than anything. The interaction between teams from different backgrounds and locations does more to propel ideas than anything else in my opinion. This type of interaction is done most effectively in person. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I still believe that there are multiple ways to inspire students in FRC. The two main methods can be grouped into what I call the "CD method" and the "non-CD method." I still believe that CD is not always representative of the majority of students in FRC, or even representative most of the time. Proof: my team. I've seen again and again that the logic that works on CD doesn't work on my team. They just disagree with some of the most fundamental ideas that CD builds on--specifically that success and learning from those more successful is the basis of inspiration. They're not wrong; they're just different.
This new champs structure is aimed at students like them, who just want to have a chance to compete more. It's aimed at teams who want to know that they did something right. It's aimed at everyone who isn't on CD, who isn't as obsessed about it, but who still could be inspired by it. I don't like this at all. I wouldn't find it inspiring to get to champs just because the bar was lowered, I would feel like we didn't deserve to go there. But as I said before, most people would disagree with me and I know many other students on my team who would. Most people just want the opportunity to get to champs, something they'll never get otherwise. They want to say that "we made it to world championships." FIRST wants to give them that. But there are also people who want to have that top goal to push towards. They want to keep the competition which pushes us all to do our best and strive for more the next year, because without the competition what is FRC? Without winners, there is no competition. I truly believe FIRST wants to give us this too. But there's another very large group of people who don't care about this. I'm just sad there isn't a middle ground between both groups. FIRST had to pick between bringing the bottom up while keeping the top, and lowering the top while bringing the bottom up more. They picked between district champs / super regionals and keeping champs, and splitting champs. I'm still disappointed in the choice that they made. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
While I do get what people mean by "half of the country" you never really were playing the whole thing anyway. Also not just U.S. teams out there FYI. Just because 25% of the teams play doesn't denounce the winning 4 teams per event. In fact being the 1% of 400 other teams should be very rewarding.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I think FIRST is really missing one of the key elements of the entire FIRST program here. This blog post made it clear that they want to inspire lower-tier teams by letting them come to Champs, but is that really going to do the job when your team was just given a golden ticket? I think it's much more rewarding to inspire teams in other ways, so that their first trip to Champs (when they've earned it) is a much greater feeling. If teams are just going to get off the waitlist, wouldn't that instill some kind of mentality where a team would just wait a few years until the next time they can get in off the waitlist?
One of the key parts of FIRST is preparing students for the real world. In the real world, you don't get handouts. You have to earn your way to the top. Sure, if you got a little taste of "how the other half lives" you'd probably want to experience it again, right? And you'd probably be willing to work a little harder to get there, right? Sure, in some cases this is probably true. But I've seen teams that went to champs one year tank hard the next. That's just the way it is, and we can try to change it as a community, but this isn't the way. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
If Frank doesn't think that other events anrt inspirational enough fix that! Also if Frank really wants to show the greatness of champs to the students of FRC make the webcasts better! Show the great pits, broadcast the workshops, show off FTC and FLL, etc... Make it a show that FRC kids/parents/sponsors want to see and will be awed by not just another regional webcast. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Meanwhile you will still have to win a regional or district championship or get a wait list spot to go so how is it any easier than 2014? I also take offence to the wait list bashing and from now on you can go ahead and call me out specifically if you want to continue denouncing wait listed teams. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
I also believe that splitting up champs and allowing more teams does not mean there will be a bunch of box on wheels at champs. They still have to be good to win a regional or get enough points in districts. There are 2 polor opposites at the moment, one where people are all about the competition and the other (FIRST) who believe that inspiration comes from participating and nothing more. There has to be some sort of middle ground. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
This year, about 9-10 of the teams that qualified to worlds from the PNW weren't picked to be part of an elims alliance at DCMP. Last year, we were 8th alliance captain and we barely qualified (I know there are other cases, but just making the point) More slots = Easier qualification. Also, wildcards at worlds this year are making up quite a large percentage of the attending teams... More so than in years past. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Lots of people are proposing a solution along the lines of District/Regionals ->> DCMP/Super Regionals ->> World Champs, and making the second tier of events closer to world championship production and event quality. I think this is the natural way for things to grow, and it could be very inspiring indeed.
The main problem everyone brings up in response is - well, then 400 teams are all trying to get to champs on one or two week's notice. Valid problem, but there's a solution to that. It's not a perfect solution, but it actually would fix a bunch of different problems with scheduling champs, avoiding AP testing season, avoiding Easter, avoiding Vex Champs, fitting in more and more regionals... Is there any reason we can't have champs in the early summer? Last week of May, first week of June, that area. Just take a month off between DCMP and CMP, for the teams that can go? Some schools would have issues with it, I know, but many academic and athletic competitions have their national competitions late, sometimes even after the school year ends, so it's not completely impossible. What does this do? It means that there's time between Districts and Super Regionals to schedule travel plans. Maybe districts could be a little bigger as a result, giving us a handful of events (like, 12 - 14) sprinkled across the country. 30 teams from each can advance, for a 360 - 420 team World Champs. And there would be time between the Super Regionals and World Champs for teams to get plans in order as well. I know some teams wouldn't be able to do this, yes. But the intention of the three tier idea everyone is kicking around is that the second tier wouldn't be just some other regional event. It would be itself a championship - a privilege to qualify, worth it just to be there, etc. The idea is that you're getting most of the experience of an early 2000s championship at tier 2, and that tier 2 would complete the season positively for many middle tier teams. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Our goal as a team, was to make it to world's in this transition year. It feels amazing and the kids are proud, because they know we worked hard to earn it. We want to be competitive at Saint Louis, we want to do our best to contribute in Qualification Matches, but most importantly we want to build a team. I want my students to strive to be better, to learn more and want more. Being able to show them robots and teams that continue to inspire me allows me to do that. Without the risk of failure or more importantly a lofty goal to reach, how can I expect them to be Inspired to grow. Teams don't want a banner or a championship slot handed to them, they want to earn it. Winning a match in the finals is not just a victory in the moment, it's being rewarded for all the hard work we put in during the season and up until then at the event. You want to inspire? Give people all the examples they can get, teach them, and reward them the right amount for the time and effort they put in. That's inspiring. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Am i the only one who thinks that 25% is ridiculously high?
With all due respect, only the best should attend Champs. (and i'm saying that as someone who is not from a "best" team). You want to inspire more teams - make regionals more inspiring, like they are in Israel. Also - have a good quality webcast, like an ESPN thing, with reporters going between pits and visiting teams getting close ups on robots or something. Also, from my experience, the teams who work the hardest, usually perform the best and will eventually attend champs, even if its only 10% of the teams. Making it into the top 10% is really mostly about working your bo(u)tts off... |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Dear Frank,
Thank you for listening at this point. However, I think many people would appreciate it if you didn't just listen now, you explained. Why was this solution chosen? How was the problem(s) it solved defined? What other options were considered? What was done to assess the best interests of teams? Who was consulted, what feedback was taken? Why was this process kept secret until after venues and dates were set? Is anything in the press release alterable? How can this model scale long-term? What are the future plans/alternatives? In particular, what's the reasoning behind splitting Worlds to make two half-world inspiring events, rather than focusing on making the already planned/created next-tier events more inspiring? With this change slated for the FRC district conversion goal date (2017), why not up the quality of DCMPs (and the J/FLL and FTC equivalents) to something approaching what is now going to be Half-Worlds? I'm cross-posting this to his Blog comments. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Our team missed the cutoff by about 5 spots, and personally, i dont mind, we cant afford it anyway. But i feel that DCMPs were super inspiring, and that is something everyone should have. An idea to try and fix this, instead of DCMPs, why not have the Super Regionals as a "Psudeo-DCMP?" It would reduce the burnout, and you would not need to bump the CMP much, if any, depending on the schedules of the regionals. (i know this has been said before, but i want to bring it up again.) Also, someone talked about the FLL, only .0034%(?) of teams get to go to CMPs, why do we have 25%? why not more 10%? Once most of FRC goes to districts, everyone will have a CMP like feel, but in a smaller area. We dont need 800+ championship, thats just too many teams. And with less teams, we dont need two arenas. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
I suspect that most schools would not allow students or programs to pay people to attend the championships if their team didnt qualify for the event, especially if they live in Hawaii and the event is in st. louis/houston/detroit. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Maybe I'm remembering wrong (it happens...), but it wasn't that long ago that ANY veteran team could simply sign up to go to Champs. I don't remember a lot of complaints about that. There have always been lots of robots at Champs that do not embody "world class" engineering, do not score in the top 10% at their local events, etc. Champs IS about "more than robots" and IMVHO, it should stay that way.
(When we went to Champs in 2010, we certainly didn't have a "world class" robot - we got there by winning the EI award at regionals. We competed, we contributed to our alliances - our robot was not bad, but not "Einstein material" by a long shot. Attending that Championship event was the most inspiring thing that happened to our team for a long time. It was what got me and several other mentors involved, and prompted us to start a non-profit organization to support all robotics on our island. It got many, many students involved in our team for the first time. Seeing what Miss Daisy had done showed us that the CA was not just something we had to do because of the NASA grant, but so much more!) Back then, and before, there were fewer teams in FRC, and I don't know what percentage of them went to Champs, but it definitely wasn't only the "cream of the crop" in terms of robot performance or engineering. Even our little "Home Depot" robot finished in the solid middle of our division. And no one was complaining about the field being full of "boxes on wheels" then! I just don't get the outrage over (a whopping) 25% of teams getting to go to Champs. 75% still won't get to go - and I doubt the 25% will include that many more "bad" robots than currently go to Champs. There are just a whole lot MORE "decent" (but admittedly not "world crushing") robots out there now that there are so many more teams, and I see nothing wrong with letting a few more of them get inspired. Just curious, what percentage of teams attended Champs in 2008? 2009? 2010? 2011? Based on what I've seen at our regional over the past few years, if twice as many teams attended Champs this year as in 2010, the "worst" robot/team* attending in 2015 would still be "better" than the worst in 2010. Even the rookie winners now are competitive, and back then, I'm not sure that was always, or even often, so. While I can see that folks might get annoyed about there no longer being "one world champion" alliance (which FIRST seems to be considering remedying), the actual location of the events (which may be the result of factors beyond their control and in any event, probably can't be changed now, and couldn't please everyone anyway), and the inability to 'hob nob' with ALL of the teams from around the world, I just don't see the outrage about allowing 800 teams, or 25%, to attend a Championship event. OTOH, I have no problem with calling it a super-regional if you like, and then having another event for only the "super elite" to attend (which should be free, in terms of entry fee and robot shipping, with subsidized housing, lots of free food, and maybe transportation - talk about EARNING something! THAT would inspire my team to really work hard!!). *I'm talking about engineering and scoring performance of the robot and drivers, but I think the same would hold true for just about ANY measure of a team's "ability" - the quality of their CA efforts and presentation, their "team imagery," scouting - except maybe GP, which seems to have been fairly consistent (and high). |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Also, the percentage is around 20% for years now. Those (me included) who advocate to lower the percentage don't to it because we want less teams in champs. We claim it because FIRST makes 2 championships only in order to keep that percentage of championships attendance. In my opinion, there's no need to keep that. The main problem with 2 events is not the fact that you have an undecided world champion, nobody cares about that. The problem is that such event will be far less inspiring. I for one am really really waiting to see this year's robots of 148,254 and 1114 (just to name a few) going head to head. That inspires me, and is what keeps me pushing my team forward. Not having this level of competition will hurt how FIRST inspires people. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
This Additionally (Frank), for the benefit of everyone concerned about the announced Championship plans, wouldn't it be nice if someone with the authority to do so (and that's not all the folks waving their personal opinions around like six-shooters), both (re)stated and unambiguously ranked by importance, the true purposes/goals of the event the FIRST web site home page graphics call the FIRST Championship? On the other side of the coin: Many people writing here on Chief Delphi seem to want to argue with FIRST about the Championship's purpose. Until everyone gets that bickering out of their systems, and decides to focus on helping accomplish the official, prioritized list of reasons for holding the FIRST Championship (see above), there will be a lot of wasted posts here and elsewhere. If you disagree with FIRST's objectives/reasons for holding a Championship, or if you want FIRST to shuffle the importance they attach to those objectives, that's fine; but that is also a different question/task than the one Frank put in front of you in his blog post. Blake |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Is this ideal? Far from it. I wouldn't even want it. A single, smaller championship event with more celebrated district championships would solve all these problems in a much more effective manner. But if FIRST is insistent on using the championship event(s) to be their main method of inspiration, then this unfortunate idea of segregation becomes a more viable reality. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
While there are no perfect solutions, here are my thoughts…
Call the first of the two “championships” the “FIRST Festival” and qualify as many teams as possible (bigger is better). While still a competition, this event would be structured as a great big party with focus on celebration of achievement, changing culture and inspiration. Hall of Fame teams would have automatic invite, championship chairman’s award would be awarded here, plenty of great teams from across the world will make it loud. Bring a film crew and capture the energy, team stories, action, etc. Provide a suitable award for the winners of the competition like the next year’s fees paid, etc. Call the second of the two “championships” the “FIRST World Championships” and only qualify the best 240 teams from around the world (there are plenty of statisticians on here that can provide the ranking criteria from year to year). Instead of casting it as a big party, fill it will pomp and circumstance. Have 4 divisions of 60 teams; keep it smaller to provide as many qualification matches as possible. Given the smaller size and selection criteria this should be an extremely high performance event so broadcast the World Championships on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPNUNameIt… Use the massaged footage from the “FIRST Festival” to fill in the natural pauses in competition. And we can anoint the “Champions of the World”. If FIRST Festival is around 600 teams and FIRST Word Championships is around 240, you still end up with 840 with plenty of inspiration and meaningful competition. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Also, imagine this: Detroit = waitlist teams Houston = Regional/District qualifiers, Chairman's winners, EI, etc. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
2008: 22.65%, 84, 85, 85 and 86 teams/division = 340 teams at champs, 1501 teams total 2009: 20.99%, 86, 87, 87, and 88 teams/division = 348 teams at champs, 1677 teams total 2010: 18.99%, 86 teams/division = 344 teams at champs, 1811 teams total 2011: 16.96%, 88 teams/division = 351 teams at champs, 2075 teams total 2012: 17.07%, 100 teams/division = 400 teams at champs, 2343 teams total 2013: 15.84%, 100 teams/division = 400 teams at champs, 2524 teams total 2014: 14.70%, 100 teams/division = 400 teams at champs, 2720 teams total 2015: 20.00%, 75 teams/division = 600 teams at champs, 3000 teams total Graph (percentage of teams at champs by year): Attachment 18820 To get back above 25%, I had to go back 8 years: 2007: 26.36%, 86 teams/division = 344 teams at champs, 1305 teams total |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
When Woodie talks about FIRST's purpose and methods, I usually pay attention; and I rarely (never?) cringe. Blake |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
The one thing I keep wondering is: Why does a team have to compete at Championships to be inspired at Championships? This is FIRST's logic and I think it's wrong.
There were years where my team decided to go to Worlds regardless of whether or not we qualified. In my opinion, the most valuable thing a team could do is spend their time walking around the pits, meeting teams, inspecting the details of good robots, and watching some of the greatest robots in the world play. If your robot is competing, you don't have time to really go around and absorb anything from other teams. Having more non-competing teams spectating would also add a lot to the energy of the event. I agree with FIRST that Championships inspire teams and improve them, but I don't think that competing at Championships is more important than attending Championships. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
To all the people griping that 25% of teams attending is too high, I'm going to repeat something I posted in the other thread:
2003 Champs had 291 teams out of 787 total. That's 37%. If 25% isn't a "real" World Champs, should we be calling 65, 111, and 469 and revoking their 2003 World Champs banners? In case anyone is curious: 2004: 31% 2005: 34% 2006: 30% 2007: 26% 2008: 23% 2009: 21% 2010: 19% 2011: 17% 2012: 17% There's no hard data pre-2003 because that's pre-TIMS, but I can confidently say that Nationals in 1998 had nearly every team in FRC, and nearly every team competing in the most ludicrous double elimination playoff you've ever seen. I'm pretty sure Nats/Champs maintained the >25% participation rate between 1998 and 2003. Which is all to say that >25% participation in Champs was the case for most of FRC history. So unless teams have gotten much worse on average, there were an awful lot of Champs held with the equivalent of 800 teams, and I don't think they were particularly terrible. Aside from 2003, which was terrible for unrelated reasons. Other points: A single 800 team Mega-Champs sounds pretty ridiculous. Especially since we haven't seen how a 600 team Mega-Champs works. How about we wait a few weeks before we decide that's a good idea? I'm curious what percentage of the 400/600 teams at Champs you people actually interact with. I know when I'm there, the vast majority of teams I interact with are in my Division. How likely is it you'll even notice on a day-to-day basis that you're at a Champs with only half the world there? I'm personally a supporter of the idea of getting more teams the Champs experience. I hear a lot of people in the thread declaring how getting to Champs once motivated them to do it again. But as the program grows and a single Champs dwindles to the top 10% of all teams, how many teams are ever going to have that experience and develop that drive to get to Champs? To the objections that we should be focusing instead on DCMPs and Super Regionals: Would it make you feel better if we just called Detroit and Houston Super Regionals instead? If FIRST is serious about keeping "Champs" attendance in the 20-25% range, then they'll have to roll out more and more of these, and eventually they'll just morph into defacto Super Regionals/Regional Champs. And at that point there will probably be enough teams to funnel into a reincarnated World Champs. My read on the whole thing is this is a transitional period while we don't have enough teams to justify/support the Super-Regional -> WCMP model. Finally, I really hope the senior FIRST leadership brings their FRC(lothing) gear to that town hall. And for the love of all that's good, I hope everyone can keep things civil. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
This. You don't need to make world championships blah for a non-existent problem of %age of teams qualifying. (As seen with FLL who has almost tripled in size since 2007, and has seen a 0% increase in championship spots in the last 9 years.) FLL is doing fine. That being said, their qualification needs to be fixed. For me it's not about non-elite teams making it to worlds, and it never will be. Sure we have all been there with those perhaps, less sophisticated robots on the field. Quite honestly qualifying for worlds gives them a huge inspiration boost that can lead to greater success in the future. Why are they inspired to up their game? Because they just had a taste of the best teams in the world. Splitting champs makes this untrue, it's just "some of the teams" which I believe strongly that if you asked most of those teams in that linked post that were so incredibly inspired and changed, the wins, the actual getting to the event is cheapened. These teams were excited and inspired because they got to play with the best of the best. Not the sorta-kinda best of the best. Not having the entire world compete at one event make me sad. It's not about the two winners playing it off. It's about championships atmosphere which can't be replicated anywhere else. That feel will be forever lost. Not to say that qualifying for one of the champs events won't be inspiring... It's just not even close to as inspiring as it would have been. Quote:
You know what! Lets just make the Olympics two events! Nobody will notice that half the world is missing! We can make more athletes dreams a reality! Everyone will be happy! Plenty of cities want to host! North America, you never get to play Asia, have fun! No. It completely destroys what makes it special. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
If people are concerned about dual Champs not being inspiring because they won't see teams from everywhere, I would think Super Regionals would be even less inspiring and less like a monolithic Champs. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
I thought the idea mentioned in a previous thread, of turning one venue into the FIRST Festival (essentially more teams can qualify, rookies go here, other FIRST leagues compete, etc.) and the other into the FRC World Championship (less teams, higher standard) would be a fine way to do it.
Sure they already booked two venues, but they don't both need to be identical. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
I will tell you that we will gladly take a spot at a "semi-championship" with the "best" from only half the world, over not getting to go at all to a "championship" where there would be a handful more of the "best of the best". Also, for the teams that will really miss building relationships with specific teams from the "other side," or feel they benefit that much more from the experience of meeting teams from a broader region (which I can totally understand - it was really cool having MORT and 610 at our regional this year, and I can see how many teams from 'back east' would really enjoy getting to meet the teams from Taiwan, Japan, Australia, etc., which probably wouldn't happen with the "semi-champs" arrangement as currently proposed), I like the "swap" idea. Is there any downside to allowing teams to swap like that? |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
It's shocking (and a touch embarrassing) that MSC had ESPN broadcast their elimination matches (and do a really, really good job of it) for a couple years, but that FIRST, with all its power and ability to produce documentaries and make strong partnerships with celebrities and huge companies, can't do the same. Hey Frank et al, even if you accomplish your goal of 25% of FRC teams at the Championships, there are still the 75% of teams that miss out every year. Why are those 75% of teams forced to watch low-quality webfeeds, and use two or three services to figure out who is playing when? If your point is that you need to be at Champs to be inspired by Champs, and that the magic happens when you walk across the Dome floor, here's a newsflash: very few members of the teams that are AT Champs get that experience. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
If the number one concern is that there won't be a true champion without an additional event, have one championship event be like the NCAA tournament and the other be like the NIT. If the number one concern doesn't have to do with crowning a true champion, or decreasing the competitiveness of the event, but that the concern is that teams from different parts of North America will never interact, allow teams to indicate their preference when signing up for the event. FIRST's biggest concern right now is that they cannot find a way to make sure every team is able to go to a FRC championship event within a student's high school career, and I think they're addressing it head on. Best thing we can do as a community is to brainstorm different ways to make it a success. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Our team is in it's second rookie year - we have gotten to the semi-finals at every regional but never further, and just last regional, we were the closest to going to the world championship we have ever been. After we lost at our last regional, I was personally devastated. So close, yet we didn't make it. The point is that our team is a middle-lower class team. Going to the world championship is really my dream.
And yet, of the people on our team who have heard this announcement, we all dislike it. Out of the ~100 teams we competed with this year, only 6 made it to the world championship. We desire to go to world's because we want to know we are in the top 6% of FRC teams in the world. But top 25%? That's an entirely different story. Being 1 in 4 doesn't say "you are a top team". Being 1 in 16 does. It's not just the "elite" teams, it's teams like ours that want a real championship, not another regional. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
As much as I appreciate you Frank, this does not cut it.
Having a town hall type discussion with input from the FIRST community is what should have happened BEFORE decisions were made. NOW you want our help to make your horrible decision better? Not pleased at all. And in case you think this is "just" the CD crowd talking, I was at one of the three District Championships all day today and EVERYONE I spoke with was universally against this change and felt disrespected for not being given a chance to weigh in on this prior to a decision. Most of those I spoke with do not even know CD exists. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
How would you feel if you got to Championship as a second pick? I don't think that puts you in the top 6% of teams - I would doubt many would say that the first alliance's 2nd pick is "above" the second alliance captain, regardless of which alliance wins the regional. Ditto for the 3rd captain, if all 6 on the top two alliances go. I don't think that just because 6 teams go to champs, it means they are the "top 6%" in terms of best robot/engineering (or even driving). |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
In 2013, my team got our first regional win ever playing defense for the two best cyclers at the Wisconsin regional. We couldn't do anything for our first few quals, and still got picked. In other words, we got lucky, but it was still the start of something really special. By our next event, we were shooting more accurately, and into the high goal, and placed second at the event, ahead of one of our alliance partners from Wisconsin, who we then picked. When we went to champs, i was a freshman who had no idea what to expect. What I found was a city in a building- a global community that understood and sought inspiration from one another. I scouted with a Canadian team, shared tools with an isreali team, drooled over a robot made completely of laser cut wood; I learned so much from all kinds of teams from all over the world. Yet, despite the many backgrounds of these teams, they all shared one common trait: they were all a vital part of the unique energy of the global community that is FRC championships. The next year, we were an alliance captain at both of our events for the first time in team history, going to finals at Midwest before being taken out by two of the best shooters in the world. This year, we kept pushing, and we got our first ever chairman's win and our first ever 1st seed, and are ranked among the top teams in the world for OPR. It's amazing what one small taste of championships can do. Even if you aren't the best at your regional, know that if you really, really dedicate yourself and seek out your own inspiration, success will come to you. The inspiration champs instills in students is not from simply being there. Your hard work and perseverance, the diversity, and the energy of this global community are what makes champs such an inspiring experience. I think it'd be a mistake for FIRST to forget this. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
What I don't particularly like is sending more teams from the waitlist, while it could (and has) inspire(d) teams, they also have very little vested into it since it's random. If anything, institute Super Regionals in non-district regions so that more teams can be in 4513's (MikLast's) position. |
Re: [FRC Blog] We're Listening
Quote:
I still feel like we could have supported 600-800 FRC teams in Atlanta plus FLL and FTC. We didn't even come close to utilizing half of the space available in Atlanta. Put FTC in the Philips Arena (pits in one of the other exhibit buildings) and FLL in another exhibit building. |
| 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