![]() |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
Quote:
Volunteers are an issue, but again, this is always an issue - even at Worlds. I assume and believe that if the Districts takes it seriously - the volunteering apect is not something that should break this. As for the schedule.. granted it's not perfect. The teams that find those options not possible, should try to sign up weeks 1 and 4, for example. 1-4-6-7-9 is not horrible. If we expand the season by a week, everything will look better. But there are issue with that. If we drop the Super Regionals and go by Districts that will split, that can work too as it will remove one level of competition and spread the competitions apart. It's never optimal, but it's better than the current plan, I think. |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
Quote:
One fertile line of discussion here would then be: If we're going to have two Championships, what more can we do to make each of them as inspiring as the current single Championship? |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
Quote:
|
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
OK, I'll start out by saying that I *know* this is not perfect. However, I think it's an idea that hasn't been proposed before, and it has some merit (IMVHO).
It seems to me that one thing we are dealing with here (on CD) is the potential loss of inspiration to the top teams, caused by not being able to win/compete for a true "World Championship" (minor factor I hope), coupled with not being able to visit with and be inspired by ALL the other great ("top") teams at a single event. Let's face it, for the "run of the mill" (RotM) teams (like ours), going to a 1/2-world championship-type-event will be plenty inspiring. Heck, just going to a second regional (with 254 and 1678) was pretty inspirational, in terms of meeting and being inspired by great teams. Also, for RotM teams, traveling to ONE 'championship'-type event, if feasible (in terms of time and money) at all, can be a stretch; adding levels would just make things worse (consider - when VEX recently changed its tournament model here in Hawaii, requiring attendance at more competitions to get to a "big" event, ALL (4 or 5) of our island's VEX teams folded, since they just couldn't afford the multiple inter-island trips that had become necessary to get to the "fun" level of competition they had previously enjoyed). I don't think any mentors from RotM teams are going to quit over this new FRC change, nor are most of those teams going to be significantly less "inspired" by the prospect of attending an event with 400 great teams from 1/2 the world, rather than 600-800 "slightly greater" teams from the whole world; the issues here are coming from the top teams, and they are important - we don't want them all defecting to Vex Pro or whatever, as it will seriously damage FRC for ALL of us. So how to solve THEIR problems, which are: - No chance to see ALL the other inspiring teams in one place, and - No chance to compete against those teams, and Win the World Championship. What if FIRST selected a small group of these "elite" teams, maybe like this: - All HoF teams; and - All Winning and Finalist Alliance Captains from regionals and District Championships (someone tell me how many this is); - The winning alliance from the first Championship. and said this to those teams: If you attend "your" geographic championship, we (FIRST) will pay your way to the OTHER geographic championship - no entry fee, subsidized hotel, travel and food for a set number of people (12 comes to mind). That way, BOTH championship events would/could include ALL the top teams; all of them, and all of us RotM teams, could be inspired by them; they could compete TWICE, against ALL the best teams, for a World Championship; the Championships would be pretty high-level, with less room for waitlist teams; added bonus - the second alliance captain would have a small incentive to reject a pick by the first, since only an AC could attend TWO championships, making the elims more exciting and competitive to watch while still getting the 2nd seed a good chance at a high honor. The downside is, of course, the time and expense for the top teams of traveling to two championships. But they'd get to go to TWO championships!! How cool is that? There could be "the grand rematch" at the second championship, with the same captains and slightly different alliances, or totally different finalist alliances - in which case, the winners of each championship could still be proud of having won at a competition with ALL the best teams. And the top teams are, generally, those with the most resources in terms of people (i.e., 'second string' teams, more mentors), sponsors, money... so if anyone can afford MORE competitions, it's them. Why isn't this a good idea? Someone shoot me down, I can't wait to hear it. |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
Quote:
Hopefully the Town Hall will help understand what more people think, but considering it's is only attended by people at Worlds, and FIRST didn't consult anyone outside HQ about this beforehand, the truth is we'll probably never really know. |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
Quote:
|
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
Quote:
In terms of fleshing out a proposal*, how's this: Each season there are n, say 30, "double bid" slots. Teams can opt into this program on TIMS before the season starts. All teams worldwide are ranked throughout competition season on a universal points system using the season's District Points document. This is tracked on the Leaderboard website. The top 30 teams on this list that did (and continue to) opt in get an invitation and free registration to both Half-Worlds. This is an alternative to FIRST covering travel costs, which could also be proposed by might be trickier. Separately, if we're looking to enforce an "equal swap" rule for the lottery, District points may be the closest way to assess equality short of a by-name qualitative decision. *A proposal that may or may not address real issues and may or may not conflict with non-negotiables within HQ, and overall cannot be weighed cost/benefit due to lack of information. (This isn't meant as a bad thing. At least not for the proposal; for HQ's methods I lack my own tact.) |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
Quote:
I also like that you hit the nail on the head with identifying the cost problem associated with adding another layer, like superregionals, to the mix. I've thought a lot about this since I saw the announcement. It's a hard problem to solve, for sure. I think there's a reason that high school sports in general don't have national, much less world, championships. But for those who have to figure out what to really do, the point I would raise to them is that it is not just the "super" teams, i.e. those who might realistically compete for a world championship, that are inspired by the event. No little kid has ever dreamed of winning 1 of 2 gold medals to be handed out at half of the Olympics. You don't have to participate in those games to be inspired. The existence of that world championship provides inspiration, even to run of the mill teams. The existence of a very large competition with lots of people at it including teams from half of the world, not as much. Maybe there is just no way to solve the cost problems associated with holding a real world championship as First grows. Let's not pretend, though, that we can hold two events, call them championships, and they will be the same thing. |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
Quote:
Honestly, I chose the term "bait-and-switch" because that is how FIRST's actions would be perceived if they attempted to change the terms of their contract with the Host cities after it was signed. Also, perhaps "spite" was a bit strong of a word to have chosen, but I Don't feel that its use invalidates the rest of the post. My intent when writing the the first section of the original post was to acknowledge the fact that FIRST will likely be unable to meet the expectations of both the FIRST community and the host cities at this point, and that compromise is probably the best course of action. The second section of the post was the compromise that I was intending to present to the FIRST community. My intent was for the idea to be criticized and possibly improved upon by others. Instead I was criticized for my word choice. I will do my best to avoid similar misunderstandings in the future. -Alan |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
4 Attachment(s)
Another very long post...
After considering this some more, debating various options with myself and some of my friends, reading through the various threads on this topics again, and generally trying to organize what I've been thinking, these are all the ideas I've come up with so far. Feel free to criticize them, pick them apart, or otherwise tell me what's wrong with them. Almost everything depends on how much FIRST is willing to compromise on this. Goals: These are goals that I'm trying to address for all of the following ideas, some are general ones that I've heard, and some are just things I personally think are priorities. - Have many teams able to attend a higher level of competition where they will be inspired (higher level = champs, split champs, district champs, super regionals, etc.) - Have a single final competition so the "sport" part of "sport of the mind" and "competition" part of "FRC" is kept - Have as few levels of competitions as possible so students miss less school and mentors miss less work - Have it end at least a week before AP testing starts - Minimize traveling distance to make it accessible to average teams - Have a way for FLL, FTC, and FRC to be together - Have final matches at the competition itself so more people can watch them Requirements: These are requirements for all ideas so that they are actually realistic. - Include locations that can support a large number of teams (enough hotels, an airport, etc.) - Include locations that have a large volunteer base that can run the events Idea 1: Super-District Champs Introduction: This plan will depend on FIRST being willing to listen to another proposition other than a split champs, which may or may not be true. If they are willing to, though, this is by far my favorite. Outline: 1. Convert almost all areas to districts. For areas without the team density to create districts, they can choose to either stay with regionals (but will be considered part of the nearest district for the rest of this idea) or join the nearest district. Below is a map of the density of teams by state (and including Ontario, for simplicity I left out other provinces/countries for now): Attachment 18830 2. Draw "super-district" lines combining several districts but not creating too large of a geographic area. Below are two maps, one with larger (500-540 team) areas, and the other with smaller (170-340 team) areas. The issue with the second one is that single states with a huge density of teams (i.e. Michigan and California) skew these numbers, so unless these district lines divide states, some areas will have many more teams than others. Attachment 18831 Attachment 18832 3. Replace district champs with "super-district" champs (or give them a different name). Although it will require some traveling, it hopefully won't be much more than it would be with district champs, especially for the smaller area one, and it will be a chance for more teams to see some elite teams and have it easier for them to get to than champs. Also, a split champs will be splitting up the top teams anyway (although admittedly into only two sections). 3.a. Each of these super-district champs will have ~200 teams for the larger version (~35% or more) or ~100 teams for the smaller one (~0.33 - ~0.5%, size will probably vary by the district in this case). Somewhere around 1000 teams, or ~0.33% of all teams using this year's numbers, will qualify. This will allow more teams to attend more frequently, thus expanding the impact these events can have. 3.b. Each of these will have FRC and FTC (and FLL if possible?). I'm not sure how many FTC/FLL teams normally attend champs, but each event should still not have more than ~350 teams max, so hopefully there are more locations that can support this many teams. 3.c. Each of these events will likely be held during week 7. Below is an example calendar of April using this year's dates: Attachment 18829 4. Have a single world championship with ~400-600 FRC teams and the usual number of FTC and FLL teams. This percentage will decrease as the number of teams grow, but the super-district champs will be the one to adjust. Champs will play out as usual with one winning alliance, one set of top awards, and so on. Questions: - How many locations can support ~200 FRC teams + FTC/FLL? What happens if that number goes down to ~150? ~100? - A point I've seen brought up regularly is that average teams, the ones this split champs is aimed at, aren't as concerned about seeing every top team as being able to experience champs. If that is true, will having these super-district champs give the same/similar experience? Is there anything that can be done to help this? - What type of arrangements has FIRST already set up with cities? Is there any way to negotiate to this type of event structure instead? Pros: - Reaches many teams, possibly even more than a split champs would - Keeps a single champs and the competition/sport aspect of FRC - Keeps FLL, FTC, and FRC together - Minimizes travel distance - Minimizes competition time - Builds on an existing structure (i.e. district champs) - Seems to be going where the split champs are going anyway - More, smaller locations makes it easier to find volunteers Cons: (Besides changing what they already said) - Teams will be more restricted by geographic area, likely even more than with the split champs - Requires more venues - Teams not in a location that will convert to districts, or far away from any of these super-district lines (i.e. teams outside of US/Canada) will either have to travel twice or depend on qualifying for champs to be in a higher-level competition Idea 2: Split FLL/FTC and FRC Introduction: Would require FIRST to view keeping FRC champs as a single event as more important than keeping FLL, FTC, and FRC together. Outline: 1. After a regular season, whether it's in regionals, districts, or super-districts, have all FRC teams attend a single FRC champs and FLL/FTC attend another one. Questions: - What is the most number of teams Houston / Detroit / St Louis / other locations could handle? 400? 600? More? Pros: - Simple (this one was so much faster to outline) - Keeps the two locations FIRST set up - Doesn't change much to the existing structure of events within FRC - Doesn't require the addition of more districts, or of super-districts - Doesn't change traveling time Cons: Besides having to change what they told cities they would get (i.e. a mix of FLL/FTC/FRC) - Splits up FLL/FTC and FRC (both for the inspiration and for student/mentor overlap, although having combined super-districts might help with some of this) - One location may not be able to host that many FRC teams anyway (may still have to be combined with super-districts or another idea to reach more teams) - Doesn't deal with traveling distance - May be harder to find volunteers Idea 3: Final Matches between Split Champs Introduction: This is one method to try and keep the sport/competition aspect if FIRST isn't willing to change their split champs. Since these are smaller, related ideas I'll just list them all below with individual notes. Possibilities: - Have the winners of the first champs fly (expenses covered by FIRST) to the second one to compete in a final match, which one is first is alternated. Pros: doesn't create a second event- Have the winners of both champs attend another competition to play it out Pros: no advantage to being at either competitionGeneral pros: - Keeps the competition while keeping FIRST's split champs - Very few other changes to competition schedule General cons: - Makes the competition aspect smaller, as not everyone can watch the final matches - Additional playing time for the winning alliances - All regular split-champs cons (not all elite teams together, issue of whether teams can choose which one they attend (and for the first possibility, it does become a much larger issue), gets rid of the goal of attending "the world champs," etc.) Idea 4: Leave it as it is Introduction: Because it is technically a possibility, even if I don't like it. Pros: - Is everything FIRST said it would be Cons: - Is everything that has been complained about No, I'm not writing them here. This post is long enough as it is. |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
I think I stumbled onto this thread before I stumbled onto others that are discussing general complaining, so probably some of my discussion should have gone in there. Sorry about that. In this post, I'm going to offer an actual suggestion that I haven't seen yet.
This is a long term suggestion, as I think at least 2017-2018 has certain elements set in stone that cannot be altered. Have a single championship event, but add 1 or 2 days to the time of the event. Create a "preliminary round" in which teams are eliminated from the competition more quickly than they currently are. In other words, today, we have competitions Thursday, Friday, and Saturday in which everyone competes. Then alliance selections happen and we have an elimination round. Change that to half the teams compete Wednesday, and some are eliminated. Others compete Thursday, and some are eliminated. The teams that are left come back and compete in a two day competition. This is based on the observation that of all the constraints, I think pit space is probably the most difficult to deal with. One obvious downside is that it makes everyone stay an extra day, adding cost. Another is that it actually requires teams to move in and out of pit space during the course of competition. That's a major hassle. The up side is that it retains everything we like about the competition that exists today. A variation on this theme would be to add one or more secondary venues in the host city. Some teams compete in the secondary venues during the preliminary round. There are obvious down sides to that scheme as well, but it does solve some problems. |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
Is there a database or spreadsheet that lists every active FRC, FTC, and FLL team (globally) with their name, number, city, state, country? The OPR spreadsheet would cover FRC for 2015, not sure about FTC and FLL though.
I ask because I would like to create a GIS picture of team locations vs. departure and arrival airports for St. Louis, Houston, and Detroit. It might be very helpful to have these facts and data vs. current state of the discussion on the "global travel cost minimization problem". Not sure if i can get it done, but I am willing to give it a shot. I have pages of other commentary I could write on these topics, but I'm still gathering information and forming my opinion. Yes, even after three whole days since the announcement. |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
Quote:
That would certainly be interesting, Have the Championship Matches followed by a release of the new game and unveiling of the New Field Setup. Giving kickoff a new meaning, and new relative importance. |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
Rachel, here are some notes based on my experience with double regionals in Minnesota that might be useful in thinking about your super-district proposal. Our local committee presents two double regionals, each with 124 teams participating.
The regionals in Duluth are held in the DECC arena (curtain between the two events), with the pits in the attached two convention center spaces. We use the arena and the two convention spaces in the lower right hand part of that map. One of the two regionals is space constrained, based on the square footage available in the City Side facility, which limits us to 60 teams in that regional. The regionals in Minneapolis are held in adjacent facilities. 10000 Lakes is held in Williams Arena, which has an attached Sports Pavilion that can accommodate 64 pits. Across the street, North Star is held in Mariucci Arena on the arena floor. That regional accommodates 60 teams and is very tight space-wise. The football stadium is probably the only facility that could accommodate a 200 team event. It's possible that it could be held in the convention center, with a scaffolding grandstand for the field. Regardless, at 200 teams it would probably be a four field event. It would be about twice the size of event that we currently staff with volunteers, so you'd need some transition strategy to build up the volunteer base for the event. I'm not aware of any local committee (run almost entirely on volunteers) presenting competition events larger than 124 teams. IIRC the next largest local event is FiM, with 102 teams this year. |
Re: Preparing for the Town Hall Meeting on the New Championships Format
I snipped this from a post of mine in the "We are Listening" thread (and added a bit more)...Just some thoughts, suggestions, conversation.
_________________________________________________ If you build it they will come. And come they (we) are, as we all spread FIRST far & wide with outreach (we / FIRST reward(s) that outreach, inspiration, and growth with the very highest awards FIRST has to offer...HofF, CM, EI, WFA, and much more), and along the way, that growth will have extreme costs (and HUGE Planetary HUMAN REWARDS),....So change is inevitable, we grow it, we must change with it. FIRST will never be able to please ALL THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME, they know it, and we know it....Now, lets work together to solve the problems caused by our metoric growth and expansion of The FIRST Mission & Ideals...Which we should be celebrating, instead of cringing (or being angered), from/by its results. FIRST is listening, and we as a group (a huge community), are some of the largest problem solvers I have ever witnessed in my 58 year lifetime. If you can design a system to snatch 2~4 of those RC's off the shelf in .02 seconds, this problem should be a snap to come up w/ a reasonable solution to determine a world champion in 2017, and far beyond. ___________________________________ This year 600 Robots in 8 divisions in one place, 20% of all participating teams represented, next year the same (hopefully, but may drop again to 17% w/ more growth), and the following year (2017), 800 Robots in 8 divisions in 2 different places, 25% of all teams represented again. (FIRST may need to actually back off that "Geographical Assignment or Placement," add in a single lottery the first year to determine whether each team is N/S, w/ 400 evenly & randomly going to each location in 2017, and after that add an odd/even last digit Team # switch of location every 3rd. year (odd the 3rd year switch/even the 6th year switch, or even 1/2 teams switch each year by lottery at season beginning), to mix up what teams play where each year so that all teams qualified & attending will have exposure to all other attending teams throughout a 4 year run). Someone else could run the math to get fair & equal exposure to all, exceptions could be made for financial hardship cases only, & on an even trade request basis only. Add 1 final place in 2017 and beyond, mid-June (maybe FIRST HQ), where those 8 championship competing teams are rewarded w/ an all expenses paid (see the $50.00-$100.00 setaside from all 800 Championship Team entries idea below to finance that program), face off to determine a FIRST FRC World Campionship Title, in a Nationally televised best of 7, or best of 9 match event to see who the real World Champions really are. (I would go 1 further...allow after the 2 N/S event Winners~Just the last 8 Teams Standing, an unbag period of 3 weeks before the mid-June event, allow both Alliances to effect repairs, practice new drivers if graduating seniors cannot possibly move on, strategize, & cheesecake all they wanted). Or, if that isn't agreeable, just ship all 8 of the robots to NH immediately from the N/S events bagged in the crates untouched from last match/no holdout allowance. 1 or 2 Truck(s)/ 2 weekends (Houston to Detroit, then...Off to NH w/ all 8 crated bots & 8 Sets of Team Tool Crates, etc)...Teams will see them in NH in 3 weeks or so. (Hey, I know where FIRST could find a whole lot of Grey/Yellow Totes to pack those tools in after this years Champs! They now own them). Now that...is true Recycling! ______________________ There are other ways beyond the existing signed contracts years (I had discussed something like this w/ my wife last Fall)...1 Event site 4 Days 400 Robots/Teams. Then out w/ the 1st bunch...In w/ the 2nd. Bunch next 400 Robots/Teams...You (FIRST) stores the robots and pit gear for the winners only of days 1~4, they fly home/then back in for the finals on the last Friday PM/Saturday AM. Just the drive team and essential personell paid for say 12 of each (Each of the 4 teams can/may send the rest of the team on their own dime if they wish). The venue goes dark 1~2 days (Sunday~Monday), for cleaning & admin. to breathe. Back at it again big on Wednesday ~Saturday (Championship Matches Saturday Night like usual). That way, the same venue/hotels/fields, etc. can be used, and it is still a true single location FRC World Championships. You move that around between 4~5 geographical locations N/S/C/E/W. (You are only inconveniencing 4 total teams...4 teams w/ a 50/50 shot at a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP!) How many would actually turn that down? How many of us wouldn't help them if they really couldn't afford it? Not many! (FIRST could set aside $50.00~$100.00 of all 800 teams entry fee to Champs to create a fund for the returning 4 teams=$40~&80K=10K per team in financial help to return to battle 1 week later for the World Championship Title). 12 Team Members Ea. X 4 Teams X $600.00 Flight Avg. per person=$28,800.00/1 night hotel 48 X$100.=$4,800.00=$33,600.00 Total (gas money to get home or food Bal., or addl. airfare $6,400.00) =Very Doable! (Of course as FIRST, I'd be hitting up a Major set of Airlines or Other Major Corporations wanting top billing exposure, to Sponsor the returning teams playing for the Championships myself for both the home & back round trip flights! And building the returning teams 1 room night into the actual event contract.) </;-)~ (TV Rights could add to the revenue & 4~8 returning team help stream, if billed & sold properly). (There would be no strategy that would help any team, as nobody would know who plays the week 1 winners, until they were even back in town and ready to play again on Einstein). Just attempt to strategize when you have no clue of who you will actually play. If a later date is chosen like mid-June, both alliances would know immediately following the 2nd. event...Strategize to your hearts content. Then meet on the Competition Field and playoff for the Wins & the Title. But, if there is additional travel involved for those 8 teams, make it a big battle, make it the SuperBowl Championships of FIRST FRC! OK, there would have to be a televised production of the Championships, so the rest of those playing week 1 and back home would have viewing access as usual to the following Saturday Championship Matches. Invited Teams are rotated based on when they last played as far as week 1 or 2 at Champs (or by simple luck of the lottery draw each year). With 8 divisions this year, you may visit other teams pits, but you won't really have much true exposure to many outside your actual Division. And in 3~4 days, can you really visit 599 other teams? (Working fieldside this year, I may even catch a glimpse of my own team occasionally...maybe! But I will get a good look at 1/8th of the teams present, about 10 minutes at a time. In retrospect, if it were 2017, that would be 1/4 of the teams present). _______________ Just throwing out some other future ideas here. (They promised those venues and cities 2 FIRST Championships in those contracts no doubt...Don't expect that suggested often FLL/FTC~FRC split to fly....Big chances it cannot now, no matter what! Nor, I think, would USFIRST ever want it to). 1 more thing...FIRST has never to my knowledge said it was a FRC WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP (except "The 2015 FTC World Championships" this year I just noticed on the main FIRST page logos...LOL) (The community did that all on their own), they bill it as "The 2015 FIRST FRC Championship!" Do the banners this year actually say "2015 World Champion / 2015 World Finalists?" I know what participants say...But, what does FIRST bill it as? They are the Creators, they are MANAGEMENT. (We are Customers, The Community, Volunteers, Invested Owners, Participants). We are growing, growing, GROWING! BIG Change is HERE! (So, get used to it!) Be the problem...Or.....Be the solution. Rant over. Ideas put forth...Take them, leave them, toss them all. There's my $0.32 cents after reading 815...ummm, NO, now over 950 postings in 1 single sitting. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:50. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi