Clash of Objectives.
 

With the recent announcement of the change in structure of higher level FRC events, it has become blatant at the disparity between the objectives that FIRST is trying to achieve as compared to the objectives individual teams are trying to achieve.

Ask yourself, what makes a FRC team successful?

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

FRC=FIRST Robotics Competition
FIRST=For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology

Since our inception in 1999, the FRC competition and FIRST objectives have served as a vehicle in meeting Waialua High & Intermediate School's objectives in providing a STEM learning experience for a small, rural community where STEM is pretty much non-existent.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

[quote=waialua359;1469475]FRC=FIRST Robotics Competition
FIRST=For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology

First objectives as stated above align with the newly announced 2 championship model. The competition is the vehicle to Inspire. I can assure you that my students are VERY inspired and we have not ever been to championships (we had to decline a spot this year).

Change is hard but I am certain that the members of the FIRST community will come together to make this work.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Yes, the competition is the driving force behind achieving the what FIRST hopes to accomplish. It's the act of competing, not the act of winning, that should inspire. If you want to see for yourself what I mean, ask your studenys what makes a team successful. The answers you'll get more than likely won't align with first's mission in the slightest. (Obtaining trophies vs inspiring) With the addition of another championship, it lowers the perceived value of making it to worlds as well as including more teams. It is attempting to fix the wrong goals of teams while at the same time allowing for the inclusion of more teams (and thus kids).

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Of course the kids are going to say the trophies/winning is why they are there; they arent they to inspire, they are there to be inspired. And if the inspiration is working, you shouldnt actually see it. Its a behind the scenes thing that takes effect over time.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Just look at nearly every person's signature, including yours. People take more pride in winning than anything else. It's more than just the kids of FRC that have the wrong mindset.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Why is a mindset "wrong"? Am I less interested in inspiration simply because I take pride in winning?

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

There's no catch all answer to your question. Each team will define success differently. Some teams just want to make the elimination rounds at their district. Some teams want to win the safety award. Some teams want to win Chairmans. Some teams want to win the World Champioship. Some teams are happy getting a robot driving.

However, I feel the majority of teams represented on Chief Delphi define success by winning. Teams that value winning are often the best and most inspirational teams in FRC. When FIRST takes steps to include more teams at the event that perhaps dont deserve to be there, the teams that work their butts off each year feel like their ultimate goal of winning the World Championship is being devalued by FIRST.

It's absolutely no different that the NHL saying we're not going to give out the Stanley Cup anymore. Instead we'll have two Stanley Mugs and we'll give them out to the Conference winners. Teams that have been building for YEARS to try to win the Stanley Cup would feel cheated of their goals. FIRST just did the same thing.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

There is nothing wrong with being proud of what your team has accomplished together.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

You seem to be implying that the goal of winning is detrimental to the goal of inspiring students.

Winning in my book is the ultimate method of inspiration, it is a culmination and validation of everything that students have worked towards. Not winning should never be taken as a sign of failure, but saying that the pursuit of victory is the wrong mindset to have is, in my opinion, incorrect. For myself, and I believe this applies to many others, winning is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, and that is inspiration.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Who are YOU to say what should or shouldn't inspire people? Winning happens to be very inspiring to me. Who doesn't want to win?

Anyone who says they don't care about winning while competing in a competition is lying to themselves. It's possible that winning may not be someone's number one concern, but to declare that nobody should be concerned with or be inspired by winning a competition just because YOU don't think it's important is wrong.

Someone should take "Inspire by Winning" and throw that on a t-shirt or something, it has a nice ring to it.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I can guarantee you, the moment my team wins Chairman's or EI, I will proudly wear it in my signature.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Inappropriate.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I think you're missing an important subtlety here. People define their team's goals in terms of winning, and people say their team successfully met that goal if they won. But I don't think it follows that these people think their team is only successful if their won.

For me personally, I view my team as successful if they never stop improving, make no excuses, and do everything they can to meet our goals. Whether or not we actually meet the goal is important, but not essential, because in the act of continuously striving to be better and do more, they have already become in my eyes "a successful team".

My team's never won a regional, but I couldn't be more proud of where they've come in the endless process of chasing that dream. I think the process of really, truly trying to win is what has made my team something to be proud of.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=128680

I did, as the wrap-up of our 2014-2015 season last week. They pointed to the two chairman's winners videos we saw at our two events (987/2468). They talked about wanting to increase our meeting times through the year to become more competitive, as well as do a better job recruiting and training new students (including student volunteerism with FLL at feeder schools).

I appreciate that FIRST provides official awards to recognize more than the the "Winning Robot". Most signature lists highlight these awards side-by-side. An ad hominem attack on a person's value system because they list the awards their team won in their signature makes it easy to dismiss the rest of your posts. However, I'm sure there is a grain of truth, where people do sometimes get a bit carried away with the importance of specific awards and forget the big picture... but I don't see it as an endemic problem in the FIRST/CD community. I can't even think of a single team I've met that has a shown a history of a "win at all costs attitude", and is blatantly at odds with FIRST ideals as you suggested.

I do sometimes feel like there is a disconnect between the "already heavily inspired" crowd on CD, that cares about FIRST enough to draft and respond to these sorts of posts... and the FIRST community at large. There are a huge number of teams that could benefit from the increased exposure to championships, with a "watered down" version they can attend being better than an amazing experience they will never see. Likewise, there are a huge number of teams that could benefit from greater integration into their local communities and online resources. I wish I knew the secret answer to get them more involved, more competitive, and hopefully more inspired.

I'm fortunate to be able to personally attend champs as a representative for my company, and I enjoy watching robots from around the world compete. I will know what our team is missing by not getting to see half (or more) of the best robots of the world. I'll know what we are missing, when watching the final Einstein match in Houston is no longer the final official match of the season. There will also be people we miss seeing, former teams of some of our mentors, teams that have visited Texas for events, that we might not have a reason to see again. For these reasons, I'm a bit disappointed personally... but I can understand the argument for the expansion to 800+ teams. I can understand that for the extra 300-400 teams that are constantly on the bubble of attending champs and might now be able to... seeing half of the best robots in the world... seeing an almost as amazing finish to the season... might be inspirational enough to push them higher.

Please don't over-simplify the complex reasons why people are questioning the dual championship model as "they care more about winning than FIRST ideals". We all get something a little different out of this program, and we all give a lot back to it.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

If you type into google "define: compete," you get this.
-----
com·pete
kəmˈpēt
verb
strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.
-----
You are literally arguing against what you are arguing for.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Teams should always strive to improve and win. Being finalists at Lone Star during my first year in FIRST played a huge role in getting me really excited about the program. That being said, while I have the goal of building a winning robot every year, I would much rather build a robot that I am proud of, and to learn and teach during the season. Even if my team doesn't win any events, if those last three things happen, I would consider the season a success.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Maybe I'm not understanding your point, could you elaborate?

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I'm going to share my PM to the OP but with more detail.

Honestly, I dont personally view it as a black and white issue here. I think the pursuit of winning positively impacts lives and drives students to be better.
I never ever kid my students. Life is full of competitions for jobs, good grades vs your peers, and other pursuits in life. Tell it like it is.

FIRST makes it easy for our own personal selfish goals. To create a platform where I can inspire kids who like STEM, where we dont have to reinvent the wheel or create our own projects/programs to achieve this.

We have lots of data on current and former students who have gone through our program for all 16 years. It doesnt necessarily mean that keeping track/celebrating our successes keeps us from focusing on our overall goals/objectives.
In our community, we lose in all sports and never get any recognition vs. all of the private and Honolulu schools. Experiencing success in FIRST competitions provides our kids a sense of pride and happiness that they hardly ever get. Of the 35 students in our program, only 8 of them live with both parents. The rest come from either broken homes, single parents, live in with guardians, grandparents, or in some extreme cases this year neglection from parents who sometimes never see their child for days at a time.

-Glenn

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Separate from all other arguments, where does it say that team's goals and ideals should match those of FIRST exactly (And who enforces this?)?

Don't be so condescending about team's goals. Everyone has their own unique team and circumstances.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Sometimes we forget the fact that we can be inspired by our efforts to win, even if we ultimately lose. Hopefully that doesn't stop us from being inspired ;)

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Our greatest success last year was being recognized for gracious professionalism on Newton. That seems consistent with FIRST's goals. And I see many teams at Regionals that are not focused on winning as their measure of success and source of inspiration.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

To be clear, this ^^ is from the team that captained their alliance all the way to a Finals rubber match on Einstein that year. They won Inland Empire, Sacramento, Newton, and Chezy Champs.

I'd say "consistent with FIRST's goals" is a pretty big understatement.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I really don't get this sentiment. FIRST did stop crowning a singular champion, back in 1999. The concept of having the "ultimate goal of winning the World Championship" was "devalued by FIRST" with the advent of alliances. Yet teams still strove for it, despite the fact they had to share the honor. It was still the highest on-field honor they could achieve. How is that different from the two Championship change? Teams still have the highest honor they can achieve on the field, even if they have to share it.

As for the Stanley Cup, there's a lot of fascinating history there, including some slaps to the face about who can and can't be awarded the cup over its history. Worth reading into.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

My point is that he says competing should be inspiring, NOT winning, but competing is by definition "attempting to win."

You can't have the goal of competing without also having the goal of winning, or you're not competing at all.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I don't understand what you're trying to tell us either. You say it like you're disagreeing with him, but you haven't clarified what your disagreement is.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

It's that the case he makes against winning is self effacing. It's like saying "I love to go on solo road trips but I hate driving and being alone."

To say you're inspired by competing but not inspired by trying to win is complete nonsense. It's the same thing.

If he's trying to make the tired point that any team that is "all about winning" doesn't understand the goals of FIRST and is doing their students a disservice, then I disagree wholeheartedly. I'll paste in something I posted to Facebook on the day of the double CMP announcement:

One of the favorite memories I have was in 2013 when 254, a team we've all been inspired by for years, picked us on the Archimedes field to play in eliminations. For a few hours that day, we got to scrape at the greatness reserved for only the best of the best. For a few hours we had the hope of becoming world champions.

It didn't matter that to me that we lost, because for a few hours we got to walk down a narrow and hallowed path. The chance to do it again is something that drives anyone who has had the opportunity to be there. It genuinely saddens me that future students in FIRST won't get the chance to know this feeling.

People say it's not all about winning, and they're right. It's about trying. But if you're not trying to win, to be the best that there is, then why try at all?

You will never be able to convince someone to try their hardest for second place.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

The way I feel about the subject is as follows. I want to win. We want to win. First and foremost, I want my team to do its very best to push the limits of what we can achieve, and strive for greatness. That involves everyone on the team putting in incredible time and work, learning new skills, and getting new experiences. We continually improve, refine, enhance, augment our process, our robot, our way of thinking, and our conduct in pursuit of victory.

We are all captivated and amazed by what we can achieve in such a short time, and what our true potential is when we work hard, REALLY hard. That's inspiring. And the most efficient motivation we have to push ourselves so hard is a thirst for victory. The blue banners in people's signatures and hanging on shop walls didn't come from uninspired people just plodding along, they came from people who desired victory and chased it and never stopped. Blue banners are not a celebration solely of winning, but of success achieved through the means of inspired people coming together.

"I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious." - Vince Lombardi

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Sorry for my longest CD post to date:

What inspires our team?
This certainly has many different answers even on the same team. In 2012 we went to Championship after captaining the winning alliance in Palmetto...first time...still only time. It was incredibly inspiring for our team:
(1) On Newton, we were in awe of 1717's machine, and found it incredibly inspiring to be in matches with them...even more so when our drive-team had strategy discussions with them and interacted as "colleagues".
(2) Our robot was particularly good at climbing the bridges, so we gained inspiration by being able to make a positive contribution to our alliances and finishing in 14th place on Newton. We "double-balanced" with some great teams!
(3) We let a team from Israel borrow a flash drive for their Chairman's video...we kept that file on the flash drive to this day. Inspired by the opportunity to help someone from so far away and so different, but yet the same.
(4) Many of our students were inspired by the sheer enormity, the different programs (we had no FLL or FTC teams in our system and had never seen those programs live) and by all the vendors displays.
(5) I personally was inspired by visiting the other divisions and seeing some of those teams I had watched videos of...Team 1986 comes immediately to mind - loved their robot!

In 2012 we did not stay for the Einstein matches...that is not what it was about for us, and we had a 14 hour drive home. We would stay now - we're a different team today, helped by the experience in 2012. I suppose I would feel differently if I was affiliated with 1114, 254, 148, or another super-team...but I am not at all worked up by the two champions...just by the two championship events.

Today - we have several team members who have watched the elite teams all year. We've helped get some other teams started, and have our first FLL team that we mentor. We host an off-season, and have a bunch of good friends on other teams that we correspond with and share experiences with.

WHEN we go back to championship, I hate that my team is not going to get to see all of those elite teams that they have been following all season. That they are only going to have half as much of a chance to be in those strategy discussions with their favorite elite team. That the team from far away that may need to borrow a flash drive might be at the other championship. As long as it's plural, it feels like something has been taken away that can't be given back.

I understand we all weigh priorities and objectives differently. For me, based on my experiences as a one-time championship attendee, and hopeful to return soon, I personally consider having everyone together in one place at one time much more important than making the experience more accessible....even with the understanding that my team would be eligible to return under the new arrangement. I like the feeling that it is hard to qualify - and that when we did...and do again, it represents a significant achievement.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

That neatly explains why I'm not understanding you. You have merely misread his statement completely.

He didn't say that trying to win is not inspirational. He said that winning is not the part of the process that is necessary for inspiration. You've been focusing on the equivalence between "competing" and "trying to win", while not noticing that he hadn't distinguished between them. The difference between competing and winning is the one he was making.

You're basically saying the same thing he did. That's why your contrary "tone" confused me.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Then maybe I am the confused one, because I strongly disagree with a double championship being more inspirational, and if I am reading the OP correctly, he does not.

To be inspired by the act of competing, do you not have to be competing for something? Even if only bragging rights, there's little glory in winning a half championship. The OP says the act of competing should be enough to be inspirational, and I contest that with no real winner, there is no real competition.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Whom do we wish to inspire? Is it our own kids? I think they are already inspired. I think we want to inspire a world, not our own little corner of it.

From whom do we wish recognition? Each other? That's a rather shallow goal, isn't it? I think we want recognition from the world at large. I believe I read that Dean Kaman wants to see a world where scientists and engineers are looked up to the way athletes and entertainers are today. You don't get that by only talking to each other.

We want to make it loud. So loud that it is heard outside the stadium walls.

First Robotics should be tailored to achieve that goal. I think winning and competition might play a role in that, and in such a way that the objectives of teams and of First are complementary. Think outside the walls.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

_____________________

Because I have already accepted the fact that there will be 2 FIRST Championship(s) venue locations starting in 2017 (any personal disagreements or feelings now almost fully set aside), though work still needs to be done to determine Annual Champions by either acceptance of 2 Annual Championship Winning Alliances being Co-Champions, or the actual scheduling of a Playoff each year between the 2. (All that FIRST has so far said we can actually work toward helping to solve the issue of...Again, SEE Frank's Blog Post: "We're Listening"...).

To attempt to seek more than that (like splitting FLL/FTC & FRC apart into the 2 events as folks have suggested repeatedly, well, that contract ink is dried, 2 Championship promises were made to 2 different cities, venues, & politicians alike...USFIRST and every members names and reputations ride on those signatures now, for at least a few years), I now expect & realize is fairly foolhardy and simply a selfish dream, but a mission many will no doubt in my mind, set off on quite soon enough....(and that isn't meant to denigrate anyones dream or work), I can just read the handwriting on the wall, and Frank's plain black on white page writing very clearly). They are listening....Be very careful what you actually ask for.

I will say good luck to many on that mission, just remember please (to those willing to stand up at this very critical juncture, to lead & be counted on among the most vocal of the community group)...FIRST is about ALL the Teams participating from top to bottom in all FIRST programs (not just FRC), and the organization (and its very fast paced GROWTH), as a whole, and teams still not yet in existance.

The real reason we now face this particular FIRST Organizational GROWTH ISSUE (The ChampionSplit), is "FAST SUSTAINED GROWTH," and of that we should all be very proud that we all help create such issues, not shy away from them. We help create our own future COMPETITION. (And all the associated problems with very fast outgrowth of a single event venue...WOW!)

FIRST Worldwide is outgrowing easy capabillities of a single US Host city serving our World Championships (in basic Hotel Room & Venue Space), wherein less than 1/4 of all "Active FRC Teams" may participate in a single combined Annual Championship event. (Any idea how many organizations today would absolutely love to have that problem? Many today are shrinking, not growing).

Think about that just a minute. Think about humble beginnings. And in a single lifetime, a mere couple of decades is all it took. Talk about metoric beginnings.

It is not about any particular individual team dreams of extending their collection of pretty blue banners and associated titles. In fact, the recent decisions have doubled the availability of both. (Just not a unified single title as of yet! Though the option still exists...See "We're Listening"). While that option was listed, not many other options were. Remember that also please.

Decisions made now, will also affect those teams we wish & work hard together to help create soon, and far off into the future, grow, and foster for years to come. And, those recently created & inspired to continue on with us.

Let's never (even in instant anger or disagreement), again hear or type quick words of abandonment (words Frank so kindly labeled as Extreme Passion), over changes deemed necessary by the organization because they may disagree with our direct personal goals....Attempt to reach across the aisle and understand the how's & why's, and why we may not have been asked for our personal opinions and feedback (directly stated we wouldn't be, in an August 2014 Blog Posting that many must have missed), before said decisions were made. (In simple terms....While I may agree with your feelings....Time to "JUST, GET OVER IT!", and begin working on reasonable solutions to existing problems).
_____________________
So, now there will be 2 sets of ultra vibrating stadium walls that we will be able to make it really loud at. Two geographic areas quite far enough apart from each other, from which we need to hope to, work toward, and begin to draw new & old fans alike from, into the two (2) very unique events.

Spreading the word that FIRST is coming to a city near you for THE CHAMPIONSHIPS, just became twice as easy! (Cast those nets far and wide, and draw them in). Make more lifelong members of FIRST. And, MAKE THOSE WALLS VIBRATE...Be HEARD & SEEN outside them also. Make It LOUD!

INSPIRE & RECOGNIZE!

For INSPIRATION & RECOGNITION of Science & Technology.

It was right there in the name all along. (Both are the supreme mission).

Why are some actually upset at Double the Inspiration, Double the Recognition? Every member and non-member of FIRST needs to be AWE INSPIRED by visiting FIRST Champ's. once in their lifetime, as a competitor or as a visitor, or a volunteer.

Guaranteed, they will return...And, if so....We will soon need more & larger venues. (FIRST isn't yet in the CITY BUILDING BUSINESS...Just Yet!):D

You will be hard pressed to find a better place to be INSPIRED toward STEM, and/or RECOGNIZED for great onfield /off-field FIRST achievments!

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Our team is all about: “Excelling in the building of better people in a better community by becoming leaders in building a foundation for STEM education and careers.”

Our mission statement since we first created our business plan has not changed because our views on the program have not.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Going to quote myself because I don't want to type it all again:
The championship event has never been about hosting the most competitive robots all under one roof. Every year for my entire FRC career (and this year included with an expanded field), there has been a thread about the best teams not to make it to the championship event that year. If the goal was to get the best competition, the structure for invites would be different.

Winning an event with 400 teams is a HUGE accomplishment, on par with winning any championship event in previous years. Having two sets of winners, in my opinion, does not diminish the achievement in the slightest.

However under this new format there are solutions to get the final co-champions to play against one another. If that is the singular concern, I would argue the fix is trivial.

Having read the majority of the posts in other threads, I think that is not the only concern and I think other concerns are more difficult to address, such as allowing Michigan teams to mix with Texas teams in a reasonable/fair way. Bringing the winners of the North and South together does not address that in any way.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I think this is the rub of a lot of "issues" with the last two major "WE'RE DOING THIS" announcements. (That would be FiM District Pilot, circa 2008 offseason, and ChampionSplit, currently under discussion.)

For whatever reason, FIRSTers are in general a friendly bunch--we like to meet new people, steal ideas from new places, push a few boundaries, borrow tools from each other regardless of location, and go to restaurants en masse in brightly-colored shirts. But on more than one occasion, FIRST has essentially said "You can only play with [and, by extension, do the above list with] teams in YOUR area unless the folks from elsewhere come to you". One of the best moves in the history of the district system was the cross-district play this season--the real best one will come when non-district teams can play in a district on some basis.

Blocking out teams from playing with other teams by any means other than "the registration at this event is full, oh and they get two events so they didn't want to come anyway" prevents teams from exchanging ideas that are often difficult to translate to online media. This can tend to turn robots in one area of the country into "type-a" and another area into "type-b" because those areas really only get inspiration via the robots they see... This isn't exactly a good thing.

There are ways to deal with this, mind you. Exactly what they might possibly be I leave as an exercise to the reader.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

In my opinion, the phrase "world championship" is pretty loud all by itself, but that is only one consideration out of many that goes into how to structure a season for FRC.

However, the focus on winning is something else entirely. I think it's vital. One of our mentors invited a couple of members of our local city council to our last district event this year. They had never seen an event, and didn't know what to expect. High school kids. Robots. Some sort of science fair-ish sort of thing, maybe?

Instead they got First Robotics, and they were blown away, just like I was last year when I stumbled onto First. And what was it that was so mind blowing? It was the passion, the intensity. The amazing cheer that went up when....a can with a noodle in it was placed on a stack of totes!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the crowd goes wild!!!!!!!!!!!!

That intensity makes us what we are, and it's fueled by a desire to win, and it's something that inspires not just our teams, but the rest of the community that we really want to inspire.

As with every high school sport, we have to balance our desire to win with the more important goal of teaching important life lessons to our kids who participate, especially among the teams who are not destined to take home the blue banners, but the desire to win is a very important part of First.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

We do not pursue awards, we pursue greatness and the awards follow.

One of my students came up with the above verbiage a few years ago. It has stuck with my team ever since. We attempt to inspire all students to be the best they can be using the robot build season to accomplish those goals. The competition is just one part of the complex puzzle called FIRST but a very important one. As an example, we don't do year round outreach programs just because we want to be world champions. And truth be known, less than 1/2 of our students are involved with the actual building and driving of our bot. Yet close to 40 have been showing up 3 times a week for the last 14 weeks. Why? Because they are all inspired. So, like my students themselves, the answer is complex and not easily defined. They have all found unity, family and purpose through their FIRST experience. And they continue with their excitement because they are all going to the "world" championship. They are proud to tell parents and sponsors that they will be competing against teams from 10 different countries.

For me, as drive coach and founder of the team, I want to see them win because it prolongs the season and the experience. Because I know like all of you that it's the journey not the destination. And I want the journey to last forever. Because I know that as long as they all have that common goal they all learn and grow together. That is the essence of who we are and why we are here.

But rest assured, when you see us in St. Louis our immediate goal is to beat you, get to Einstein and be world winners. I'm not ashamed to say that. It's okay to want to get to the top. And in this case, get to the top of the world. My kids will never have that opportunity again once they leave. And yes, it is a little less inspirational to win a conference than to win a world title. Pursuing greatness has its benefits and being known as world champions is one of them.

For what it's worth, As a side note. My team has been very fortunate to win the world safety award at championship twice. I have heard conversations from students, parents, mentors and alumni that those recognitions will always mean more than a divisional award. Are they wrong? Nope. As I tried stating earlier, it's not a black and white easy answer. It's very complex just like our students. Wouldn't want it any other way.

We do not pursue awards, we pursue greatness and the awards follow.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Many opinions to be had regarding this subject. How your team runs and what success (as defined by your team) are driving forces for sure.
As a mentor, the inspiration issue, getting students interested in STEM is why I’m aboard. Besides I work with a great group and enjoy the program overall.
Yes I think the competition is a big part. It too motivates on many levels.
I do wonder for all who are interested in the one world champ theme if they would agree, you should make it by your play with your robot that year. If it’s all about the one world champion robot, why accept teams based on being good rookies or having won an award or being a HOF? If you want to determine the best robot only score should count right.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Simple answer
For many there are important competitions going on both on and off the field. The list is long and includes world chairman award, for us it used to be world safety award etc etc etc. Recognition by your peers isn't a bad thing.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

This works in life outside of FIRST too.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I think we are like minded here for the most part. The idea of THE World Championship is inspirational in many ways. Our team makeup sounds much like yours SUNSHINE.
And while I am hesitant to accept the change FIRST has put in place for some reasons, accept it I will. What would opinion be if the two championships were divided by those who are seeking recognition for their efforts toward FIRST goals (re AWARDS) and those competing only with the bot for this year’s game? Sorry a bit of pot stirring here, but it is an opinion and idea’s thread.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I'd like to see the possibility of you CHOOSING which championship you go to. I feel like this would resolve the issue of wanting to meet other teams while giving teams with less-funding the ability to travel to closer events and allows for more teams to qualify for the Championships.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I'll piggyback on waialua359's earlier post.

If you are competing to earn top honors in FIRST, you are explicitly competing to earn a Chairmans Award, and only implicitly (or as a side project) (or not at all) striving to earn a Tournament Champion award.

The top honor teams compete to earn in the FIRST Robotics Competition is not the Tournament Champion award.

So, Yes, FRC is a competition (a competition aka a "coopertition"), and the way you become one of that competition's winners is by earning one of the FRC Chairmans Awards.

If you are going to complain, at least complain about FIRST planning to give out more than one of their most important award (but before you do it, ask yourself if complaining about that makes much sense).

Is there anything, unclear, inconsistent, or incorrect about what I have written here? Does it misrepresent what FRC is?

If not, can we stop bickering about whether future seasons will have one, or two, or more Tournament Champions? Please? The number of Tournament Champions is interesting, but crowning a single Tournament Champion (alliance) is explicitly not FIRST's purpose.

Blake

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

If First really wants to inspire kids then get the adults off the drive teams unless it is a small team or special needs team.

I see way to many adults getting involved in areas that need to be off limits and should be for kids only.

Best memory of Palmetto Regional was from team 1533 and the petition for Mentors.

Motivate
Educate,but
No
Touching
Our
Robot

Kudos to them I hope they send First the petition results.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Wow, what a shift in topic!

For the past few years, FRC has has picked up on sports analogies as a means of inspiration by making the games rather sportlike (half have balls, and most have defense), and has supported worldwide integration and sports-hype through the crowning of a single championship alliance each year.

This year, the game is definitely non-sports-like. I had accepted this as an anomaly, a one-year-in-four placement (rather than throwing) game. The introduction of two separate championships looks like a solid step into systematically diluting the competition aspect of FRC.

In a world with two (and later probably more) championships, I see two possibilities:

1. Teams are assigned a priori to compete for a specific championship. This will result in two separate "Leagues" that (at present) will not have a "World Series" or "Super Bowl". It would also further confuse the "interleague games" when a team from one division decides to travel to the other division's turf. (Do you forbid this? OBTW, if you select based on event, what happens to teams that qualify in both leagues?)
2. Teams are randomly assigned to one or the other championship as they qualify. This will probably result in even worse "over-pre-booking" of hotel rooms by the powerhouse teams (here defined as teams that reasonably expect to qualify for championships each year).

At the end of the day, there doesn't seem to be a solution to the latest solution, at least not yet.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

What if the students on another team find it inspiring to work side by side with their mentors on the robot? Why do so many people involved with this program feel the need to impose their opinions and practices on other teams?

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

The answer to your second question, Dave, is arrogance. If someone wants student-only build culture on your team, great. YOU DO YOU. But, that doesn't mean that everyone has to be brought down to your level because the ideology of majority of FIRST doesn't match up with yours. But as for myself, and many others, the students that I've worked with embrace full collaboration, because they want to see all the possibilities in engineering a world-class robot; and to bring everything the team can, to be not only the best team, but the best future engineers they can be.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

There is a huge difference of working side by side and mentors building the robot for them.

Why do adults find the need to be on a drive team for a veteran team? If First wants to get more kids involved then let more kids be involved by leading their teams in competitions. It needs to become a culture to let kids design, build and compete in First Competitions.

Do teachers take the test for their students??

First needs to get back to basics on why this was developed, not for adults but for our kids.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Here you go, Don. This seems to be more your style. It's a great organization, and no mentors ever design or build the robot.

http://www.bestinc.org

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I am amazed at how many people can't answer a question but want to tell you what to do.

I asked a simple question and have not gotten an answer.

The question was: " Why do adults find the need to be on a veteran teams drive team?"

Maybe people just need to see the definition or mentor. So here .
mentor
noun men·tor \ˈmen-ˌtȯr, -tər\
: someone who teaches or gives help and advice to a less experienced and often younger person

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Sometimes, the need presents itself. Students sometimes need game-time guidance from an on-the-field mentor. (Oh gosh, someone who teaches or gives help and advice to a less experienced and often younger person; do you think would this fit the description? Do ya?) Being a coach in no way means you're taking the test for them. Here's an example. And another example. And another example. I just gave examples from the sports world, and our own world on how coaches aren't taking the test. They'll assist in making sure that students are well prepared to take the test; but in reality, the three students' individual decisions will decide whether you go home with a blue banner, or end up looking from the outside in on the celebration. The coaches I highlighted help their players/students to realize that, as well as become independent in their own right to make in-game decisions to become elite. Everyone has their own opinion on what the basics really are. But few are the ones that actually understand and realize the definition of what the basics are. What the mission and vision of FIRST is.

Now, I realize that there are some overbearing coaches in FIRST. Sucks. Sorry. But, another fun fact: you can be an active part in changing the culture on your team. If you want to change the interactions between your mentors and yourself, sit down and talk with them. But if your only solution is changing everyone's situation so that they miss out on an opportunity to learn and succeed, just because you don't have the cajones to do what's needed; that's just hella shameful.

Maybe you're just making excuses. That's what I think. Michael Jordan said it best. People that want they want hard enough, work to make that a reality. Few want to put that above-the-level work in. That's why only few become legendary, few become immortalized.

So, you think that change on your own team can make you legendary? Great. Try that for yourself, and tell us how it works out. But remember the actual mission of FIRST, and the vision of FIRST:

"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."
Dean Kamen, Founder

Mission:
Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

The students asked me to.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Are you not also bothered by adults contributing to the strategy, design, and construction? From your posts it seems you explicitly stated that.

But to answer you question about drive team.

(A) adults don't drive, and they may not interact with referees. They may serve as coaches on the field.
(B) because students may need a mature presence to help them focus, or to prevent them from overreacting to setbacks in the heat of competition.
(C) to increase communications between alliance partners.
(D) other.

All that is from my own experience as drive coach. This year, a senior student took over the role and it worked out great, but I was prepared to step in if needed. But I can only speak for myself and my team; who are you trying to speak for? Run your team according to your best practices. If you can't stand seeing what you think are other teams doing otherwise, then I don't know what to tell you. I've already given you a link to an organization (which my team also participates in, by the way) that more closely aligns with what you've expressed.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

What a great idea! I'm on my way to talk to the football coach to tell him he is no longer needed. This may catch on...... He says tongue in cheek.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

This again?! To anyone else who might not already know this: this topic has been discussed to death many times before. Please use the search function to see previous opinions on it instead of bringing it up again, especially right before champs when everyone is tired and stressed.

Some teams (like mine) have students as drive coaches. Some teams don't. It's up to individual teams to decide what works best for their team. If a team decides an adult drive coach is best, it is their choice and they have the right to make it. If students learn from and are inspired by their adult drive coaches, they're getting as much from FIRST as anyone else.

Do adult drive coaches drive the robots?
Do students teach themselves the subjects?

What if kids can learn more and be more inspired by working closely with adults who have more experience than they do?

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I've debated back and forth on this one. For our team, we made it to Einstein with a student drive coach in 2013, and we made it to Einstein in 2014 with a mentor drive coach.

The biggest difference? Our student coach had to focus pretty much on our team and more narrowly on the roles of the other alliance members. Our mentor coach was able to step back and coach the other alliance members, even before the matches. Having a mentor coach allows us to reach out to other teams more directly which I think benefits a broader spectrum of the community.

I'll also say the drive coach is in that grey area between direction and playing, so there's not a bright line. We've used student coaches at off season events recently.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

When the two season finale event plan first came up around a student I was talking with, I first had to convince him that it was really true. He didn't believe me.

When I finally convinced him that there would be no world championship in 2017, his response was "Don't they understand that this is a sport?"

As I have said elsewhere, I don't have a real opinion on whether or not we should have a world championship. (I refuse to even discuss the possibility that we will have two world championships. That's self contradictory.) I can see why cost factors and school schedules might make a single world championship impossible as First grows. I don't know of any other high school competition that has a world championship, and not many have national championships, for exactly the same reason. Those calculations involve too many factors for me to weigh in on.

However, I do have an opinion on the sporting aspect. I think it's very important to maintain the sport connection, and to treat FRC as a sport. I think that's why it works. I'm hoping the 2016 game goes back to something more sport-like.

As for having a single world championship versus two - - league championships? Sports fans, and players, like world championships, and that should be one factor, but only one, in the decision.

I think the final decision should be driven by consideration of a recent slogan associated with First. "Make it loud!" Make it loud enough that people who aren't present in the stadium will notice it. That's why I've ended a few posts lately with "think outside the walls."

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

It's AMAZING how a discussion of "Does multiple World Championships hurt the mission of FIRST, to inspire students"... turns into the age old Mentor-built vs. student-built argument. Honestly people. Haven't we talked about that topic enough yet? (No!)

CD has a search function; please use it.



Back to the Topic at hand. If FIRST really wants to achieve ALL it missions (inspire while still being indeed a competition), then they are absolutely right when they say that allowing more teams to progress is the key. Seeing the best of the best is so awesome and so motivational to do better. But if they don't want to make the competition side of things a complete joke, there needs to be one undisputed Champion (looking at you, 20th century college football).

The obvious solution (to me it's obvious) is to make the Championships (soon to be plural) local/regional championships, and hold one Grand Championship of the Championships.

...Oh wait, districts already do that...

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

This thread has diverged from it's topic to a perennial favorite controversy that has pages and pages of it's own posts...can I ask that we do the quick search on adult coaches - and post in one of the many threads already dedicated to that subject?

Regarding the "Clash of Objectives" I had a quick conversation with my Regional Director the other day - and was surprised to find that she was in favor of the Championsplit idea...On reflection, however, it made more sense that those in the positions of "providing" the program are more likely to favor the idea, where those who "receive" the program may be more opposed. In my opinion the providers want to get that experience out to more teams, while the customers tend toward liking the experience being a more exclusive thing.

A clash of objectives may be exactly the issue. My fear is that an outcome that favors the FIRST HQ vision of what's best will do so at the expense of the FIRST Team vision of what's best. Both of which are valid, and both of which were nicely coexisting before this season. FIRST is either sure that they are right, or don't care (which I refuse to believe). While they are asking for input, survey responses, and a town hall forum - each of these requests is preceded by "In 2017 there WILL BE two championships..." I'm not so sure they are right, and I'm kind of hurt that the tremendous backlash of opinion hasn't resulted in language like "Beginning with 2017, we are still considering holding two championships, but realize now there may be other alternatives. Let's talk."

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

As a founding member of Team 11 and someone that's been involved in FIRST over a 20 year period, with some breaks here and there:

I never did this to win.

I helped with this:
To inspire.
To give confidence.
To expose to new things.
To prove we are together as a society.

The cost of doing this has been relatively high for me.

I am not, at all, surprised given the increasingly competitive drive in our schools that it has bled into FIRST. People will tell you this is about jobs. They will tell you it is about the future. They will tell you it's about being better than some other group. What they won't tell you is that nothing comes with guarantees. Not your schools. Not your degrees. Not winning FIRST.

So why do it? We all stand together. All of us. Not just the winners. Not just those with the highest paying jobs. FIRST has given students, mentors and teachers I know a chance to shine when: resources, education, politics and age where against them.

Let's not cling to the idea that we must know who the best is to actually be fantastic at what we can deliver as an organization. If 2 championships makes this level of experience accessible to more people and the price is a few more winners out of billions of people on Earth are we really able to justify the selection of a winner over the values we embody?

Ask yourselves this....if we are hoping to build the future...how many people do you think you need to achieve that? I bet the number is bigger than the number of FIRST champions since 1996 put together.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

My sentiments exactly. :D

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

1) If "winning" is the primary goal of a team, then that is at odds with "co-opertition", because such a team will most likely only aid those teams not capable of beating them.

2) I have seen way too many mentors from other teams who not only bully and berate their students for what they consider poor performance, but who also who try to bully other student driver teams into roles that will not benefit a Qualification Alliance - but rather, roles that will showcase their team to the detriment of that Alliance. Those mentors should be relegated to other roles that do not involve building character in young people.

I applaud and support any Championship configuration that is not modeled on winning at any cost over that which rewards and applauds the stated values of FIRST.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

1. Completely and utterly false.

2. Those "mentors" dont deserve to hold the title no matter the sport; not even football.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

The idea of a clash of objectives comes down to how different parties interpret the name of FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) the vision of FIRST ("To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders.") and the mission of FIRST (Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.)

Those in favor of the championsplit aren't people that detractors should think are inept or malicious people. This group is mostly made up of people who provide the event, see what benefits the event provides, and think providing the Championship experience that they see to more teams fits within their interpretation of these three components of FIRST's overarching message. Let's also take time to remember that a large number of people who provide the championsplit are
-Not mentors
-Not former mentors (I know Frank is a former mentor, but I would love to know how many people who led this decision are mentors)
-Not students or alumni of any FIRST programs
-Not directly related to anyone in any of these categories

From what I can see, providers of the split think these components are key to an inspiring championship experience
-Traveling a sizable distance, but not always difficult to compete in a 4 day event
-Playing the game with 399 other teams in attendance (quality is not necessarily a driving factor, but with little variability teams should see half of the blue banner winners and HoF members at either event)
-Experiencing being around in a stadium like environment for opening and closing ceremonies only to listen to speakers like the FIRST Founder and National Advisor, sponsors, and "celebrities"
-Having all programs represented at a Championship event
-Experiencing tangential events to the competition like Scholarship Row, the FIRST Finale, and tourism attractions

To try to make sure people didn't think I was looking at this in an overtly biased way, I didn't say their priorities included "MOAR REGISTRATION FEES!!!", state government influences, and other somewhat tinfoil hat things to claim.

Detractors of the championsplit aren't people that supporters should think are hyper-competitive, elitist, malicious people. This group is mostly made up of people who dedicate a grotesque amount of time to their teams, see what benefits the event provides, and think the most important elements for an inspirational Championship experience are evaporating away under the new plan, meaning the split fails to accomplish objectives within their interpretation of these three components of FIRST's overarching message. Let's also take time to remember that a large number of people who oppose the championsplit are
-Veteran mentors of HoF teams
-Younger mentors and recent alumni on above average, "plugged in" teams
-Current students on these above average "plugged in" teams
-Not board members with USFIRST or staff members at HQ
-Likely not RDs (though some mentors of HoF teams are also RDs, and that's awesome!)

From what I can see, those opposing the split see these things as key components to an inspirational championship experience
-Playing alongside 400 teams, some are the best teams from all over the world
-Playing in the event regardless of distance
-Seeing every Hall of Fame team at an event and learning from them
-Tangential experiences do not make up more than the sum of their parts, these people are here to compete and learn how to compete better
-The competition's scale should dictate the venue, not the available venue dictate the competition's scale
-Commiserating and learning from/listening to teams instead of guest speakers

I'm of the opinion that the best answer moving forward lies somewhere on this spectrum, but not at either end of the line. The ivory tower in Manchester should not expect every idea of theirs to be an unqualified success in the community, and the hivemind here can always stand to dial it back so we don't all look like some megazord version of chicken little, becoming more anxious of the falling sky as we combine our thoughts. I don't think HQ made the right call here, and it's not because of the split itself. We are not customers to the FIRST, Inc., and we aren't pawns in the board of directors' game of stem education thrones. This is a partnership. This is a team effort.

I'm a team leader. I'm not the best at the job. If there was a qualification test for it, I would probably barely scrape by (background check excluded; I'm clean I swear!). I don't always get along with everyone else in senior leadership. But I know we all have the team's best interests at heart and I know no one would shoot first and ask questions later because we thrive on trust and respect, and a kind of action like the one FIRST took with the split does damage trust and respect in the relationship. I hope they were just ignorant to the idea of letting us at least know they were looking in this direction before the contracts were signed, instead of knowing there would be an outcry and pulling the trigger anyway.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Why not attend all the Championships then since they said they will not be simultaneous?

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Because there are stipulations in place to not allow that. And even if it were, 2x the money, 2x the time off school, 2x the time off work.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Time out of school and work.
Money.
Logistical hassles.

If you're attending both, you have to double all of those amounts from one.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

If such a rule exists (can anyone point me to it?): what stops teams in the same school like Team 11 and Team 193 from attending 2 different championships?

The composite of the 2 teams has more fund raising power and people so it partially negates the issue.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Didnt know the 2017 rulebook had been published? It was said in one of Frank's blogs I believe; that's why I called it a stipulation and not a rule. And you answered your own question. TEAM 11 and TEAM 193 can go to 2 different championships just as 254 and 1114 can.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Not if those championships are "region locked" by team geography.


I suppose that the border between the north championship and the south championship could somehow happen to fall right through MORT's build space and have 11 and 193 in different regions...

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Oh yeah, thats true; forgot about the region locking.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I knew there was a good reason why Team 11 gravitated towards the robotics room, and Team 193 gravitated towards the wood shop with that metal shop in between as a DMZ ;)

Can someone point out where they will be region locking? Right now it's not unusual to find Team 11 competing in Hawaii prior to championships.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I think that that's one of the items To Be Discussed (er, Decided). My thoroughly uninformed guess would be that the farther south and west you are, the better your odds of going to Houston; the reverse directions apply for Detroit. But, that being said, there's a distinct chance of some form of exchange program or odd dividing line or something like that that would point some teams elsewhere from where they might normally be.

My other thoroughly uninformed guess would be that your qualification location won't be nearly as important as your team's home location.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

For the record, I'm a FRC Alumni, former mentor and current volunteer in support of dual champs. I have family members who are Alumni and current and former mentors, and I check in on my former team every year. I also meet amazing students on dozens of other teams each year I volunteer. I do want as many students as possible to go to championships, just like I did.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Well said. I would agree the culture of FIRST has become competitive in nature over time. Like, you think that people wouldn't throw matches in FIRST; but it has definitely happened. I would even be willing to bet it's happened this season. Maybe even at my own regional a couple weeks ago.

But yeah, I'm willing to see where this project goes with 2Champs. But I'm still justifiably salty that we as the FIRST community didn't have a bigger say before everything went down. But that's me.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

Those are pretty bold assertions. Did you conduct a statistically valid survey to come up with them? Would you care to move those statements from the realm of biased guessing to the realm of credibility by backing them up with some facts?

My opinion is that you are flat wrong on several levels, and that these are irritatingly false dichotomies.

Blake

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

I'd need to disagree with inspiring and getting peopled involved means you have to win. Even though we're a second year team, I have seen how inspired all of the students have become since last year. They are willing to put in a lot more time and do more complicated designs as well as understanding how important this program is. Most are now looking to go to school for engineering and we haven't won any awards. We just learned a lot building on old experiences and realizing we can go far if we put the time into it and try. Some teams may have students who don't put in all the work and so they have students who may not get inspired and learn the great benefits of this program.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

You don't need to win to inspire, but one could argue that your team really, genuinely, fully trying to win is what does a lot of the inspiring.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

But our team is also doing a lot of work just to draw more and more school in, currently we have 3 high schools with us and working to bring more in. Last year we seeded high but didn't have the best bot but the students worked to do out reach and gain experiences anyway.

Re: Clash of Objectives.
 

[you need to spread some reputation around before giving it to Chris_is_me again]