Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

I like the general concept. I'd like to see how it might play out in terms of which teams qualify to which event, but in general I think it would be a really cool approach.

I've thought that FIRST's innovation of using rotating alliances which turned other teams into both competitors and cooperators is tremendous. This type of championship qualification system could be along those lines.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

In a two tiered model, I'm concerned that it will be difficult to get teams to attend the 2nd tier event. Attending these events is expensive. Teams will do a lot for a shot at becoming a world champion. I'm not sure that teams will care enough to spend that much money for a shot at winning the FRC NIT.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

I seriously doubt that even a significant fraction of teams go to champs with the intention to win it all. The second tier event(s) will still give teams a fun large-scale event to end their season.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

I don't think it's an issue, but sweetening the deal with stuff like qualifying the winners of the Open for the World Champs the next season could help.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

Other award category to add to the CI points - GP. Also, perhaps the Chairman's Award is given at the Inspiration Champs, and teams qualified at the Recognition Champs can send their RCA presentation team to that event.

This proposal is so out of the box that it really fits with FIRST's innovative way of redesigning competitive games to lead to interteam cooperation (i.e., coopertition.)

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

I agree with this sentiment. Maybe the top third believe that they have any chance at winning the championship. Virtually none of the rookies and wait list teams believe that; the teams traveling on Chairman's and EI are focused on that award; and many third bots in Regional champs are enjoying that they simply qualified.

I ran in the NCAA championships. I never imagined that I would be competing for the win (there was a two-time Olympic silver medalist in my event who set the record for most NCAA titles.) I went to compete with the best athletes and to meet many of them while enjoying a great competition. But I also got much of that same experience from running in a couple of high level invitationals. The NCAAs was a season-long goal and season ending reward for me. I expect that's the case for most FRC teams.

And many NCAA basketball teams are very happy to play in the NIT. In fact two other tournaments have sprouted up to meet the demand from teams wanting post-season play. That's why I think that some form of a two-tiered championship will satisfy the desires of most FRC teams.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

2826, 2512 and 987 qualified for championships by winning the Chairman's Award.

4265 qualified for championships by winning the Engineering Inspiration.

2826 and 987 also won a Regional Event.

Would you say these teams focused on Chairman's/EI and not the robot game?

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

I don't have the time or energy to type up my full thoughts on this thread yet, but I want to briefly respond to this.
Team 1671 2015- Qualified via RCA
Team 5012 2015- Qualified via win as "3rd robot"
Team 1241 2013- Qualified via Engineering Inspiration
Team 973 2011- Qualified via waitlist
Team 177 2010- Qualified via waitlist

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

I'm going to pile-on with Sean...

I don't agree with this. Given the serpentine draft, four robot alliances, AND the proliferation of cheesecake (I hate that term, BTW), anything can happen. I don't see why the vast majority of teams there wouldn't believe that there's some possibility.

I agree that the vast majority of teams don't go there expecting to win, but most teams should say "hey, anything can happen."

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

Nobody is saying that one has to win an event to be a competitive team, but that you are more likely to get competitive teams by looking at event winners. Yes, there are outliers as you've mentioned here, all of which are very capable and deserving robots for the championship level that qualified by means other than winning an event, but they are exceptions to the rule, not examples.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

I would prefer the two to be stand-alone events that are full "regional" championships.
I would like to see FIRST then do a head to head championship from the two regionals at some other date/time/location. This is not so much to indentify the one true champion, but to turn that into a TV special. The quality of those 2 alliances should be quite high, and worthy of Television. Having it as a seperate event could allow for a higher production level (in terms of TV) type event. The proram could have some highlights from the two other championships, and then lead into matches for these two alliances.

If FIRST really wants to be known and change/influence culture, having a good TV special would go a long way.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

That's an argument for the district model. CA and ON are notoriously hard to qualify from, since you have to play through some of the best in FRC.

2015 is aberrant due to cheesecake. As far as I can see (1) robot who was a "3rd robot" qualifier made elims (out of 128) in 2014.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

Can't that trend also be related (perhaps insignificantly) to the switch to 8 divisions? ~42% of teams in a division being in elims in 2015 vs. 32% being in elims in 2014

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

For sure - the %'s are probably less informative than the total number of teams "participating" in elims.

2013: 96
2014: 128
2015: 256

While 100 team fields are less than ideal, splitting to 8 fields caused a noticeable decline in the depth and overall competitiveness of each field.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

How so? I have heard others say this, but I don't find any actual evidence of such.
Many predicted "stand outs" didn't make it to the finals of their divisions, and there really did not seem like a lack of scoring capability capping scores. Lots of #1 alliances didn't win their division, which means that there was enough depth to form competitive alliances.
I don't think the mix would have dramatically changed 2014 either.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

All of these teams would've qualified on merit under the district system. The regional model does a poor job of sending the best teams.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

This. With the floodgates opening on the waitlist but some bigger areas stuck in the old model, maybe FIRST should normalize regional participation into the district points system? You're requiring teams attend two events to qualify via this method and spend $9k in reg fees, but everyone in the district model already does that.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

Clearly teams like 2826 and 987, as well as my own team (2614) which win RCA AND Win an event are focused on both Chairman's/EI AND the robot game

Being good friends with many people from 4265, I know that they acknowledged that their robot was not one of the best and did not expect to be picked before 4th pick. Further, they were cheesecaked extensively by 2826 to include a can grabber, and likely would not have been picked otherwise. Basically what I'm saying is that although during build season they focused on the robot game, but acknowledged their robot's inferiority at CMP, and so focused mostly on EI while there (I also know they were very saddened when they didn't win EI)

I don't know much about 2512, so I can't say anything about them other than possibly cheesecake :D

It's interesting to note that all of the finalists playing on the field on Hopper were Chairman's award winners. Neat factoid most people probably don't know

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

I feel like this might be a workable compromise. If you look at it as a method of implementing region switching, then it isn't too far from FIRST's current plan.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

Cut the depth of each field in half. Field winners were the 1,2,4,1,2,1,1,2 seeds. 2014 had 1,1,5,5. 2013 we had 1,2,3,5. Fields were significantly less deep across the board - and your shot at winning Einstein was dependent on which field you ended up on. No offense to any of the teams on Curie, but nobody was even close to 1114+148. They had ~20 point cushions on the rest of the division through quals, QF's, SF's, and F's. That's partially attributable to the game dynamic, but Einstein turned into a less deep version of division finals.

Elim scores weren't bad, but that's mainly due to the fact that 3rd robots didn't have much of a role on strong alliances (failure of game design), and a few were picked purely for "cheesecakeability".

3467 was our "4th robot" in 2014 (29 of 32 picked), but they were a 2x District Winner and a 1st round selection at NE DCMP. Most "3rd robots" didn't have those qualifications this year.

2012 I watched 1114,2056,4334 topple 67,2826,4143
2013 I watched 33,469,1519 beat 987,2415,2959 (after having to go through 254,2468,11)
2014 our alliance (2590,1625,1477,3467) squeezed past the MSC champs (33 & 27, along with 175,334)

I didn't see anything comparable to that this year - to some extent it was shifted up to Einstein, but I didn't see those deep, skilled "IRI-lite" alliances this year. 1671 being the notable exception, not sure how they slipped that far.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

To be fair, 3467 shouldn't have slipped that far either.

I'm interested to see how the dynamic of the game would have changed if divisions were as deep as they were in 2013 or 2014.
I think that most alliances would be able to clear out every normally available tote, instead of just a select few of them.
More matches would have been decided on can races alone.
I'd wager that if we had a traditional 4-division championships, then upside-down totes and step totes would have actually mattered to win on Einstein.

But that's meaningless conjecture.
I'm not sure Championships being weaker overall matters as much, as long as the best are there, and they eventually rise to the top.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

Problem: there won't be 20,000 people in the stands. TV wants an event to show that it has crowd interest. (My favorite sport track & field has this problem now.) The final championship can't be held in isolation with little apparent enthusiasm. And viewers will wonder why the semifinals had 20,000 viewers and the final has a relative handful. Also TV wants a "story" that is both engaging and easy to explain. In track meets there often will be several key competitors. The producer will tell the spotters/prep folks that they must pick only one favorite and one rival to make the presentation compelling. (I know several of the TV spotters for the Olympic track broadcasts.) Packaging a presentation is a bigger process than simply setting up the event.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

I would add 5136 who was on our alliance last year, but this is a VERY short list given the hundreds of teams that have qualified. General policies have to be made for general situations, not for exceptions. This is why we require vaccinating the general population even though we know a few people will be harmed in the process. The general outcome is so large that it outweighs the few exceptions. (And now I've probably stepped into another controversial example...:rolleyes: )

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

The solution is that 2826 and 987 send their 3 member RCA team to the Inspiration championship and their robot to the Recognition championship if they so choose.

I think the question here is which is the better alternative:

- Geographically allocated super regionals that are unlikely to bring together the most like-minded teams, or
- True world competitions that focus more on either field competition or means of inspiring STEM outreach, or
- One true world championship in one location and another world competition which might lead to qualifying for the next year's world championship?

I like options 2 or 3.

Until we see a proposal from FIRST for a unified championship competition in the current model, any discussion about that prospect is speculative.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

And another note for Method D: if you assume that the first and 2nd 100 are distributed in proportion to geographic distribution, travel costs are reduced for 87.5% of the teams, thus meeting FIRST's stated goal pretty well.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

Personally, I don't really care about having a single champion. The model I support is having one "lesser" championship, aka the US Open or World Festival for rookie all-star, district points, etc. qualifications, and a world championship for chairmans and winning on the field. I apologize for the confusion, but it was my understanding that the winners from the "lesser event" could then compete at the championship, which is a logistical nightmare.

But I like the system I outlined above because you still get a representation from all regions (which you don't with FIRST's model) and you get one "real" champion for those that care about that.

I dislike FIRST's system not because of not having one champion, again I don't care about that. I dislike it because of the geographic restrictions.

The Boy Scouts tried having two national jamborees in 1973, one in Idaho and one in Pennsylvania. Most disliked it not because there wasn't one "true" jamboree, but because it divided the community by geography.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

You dont want one "lesser" championship but there will always be one if there are 2. One will have worse robots, one will have worse RCA teams(thats not a slight to teams, just using "worse" to keep context), one will have worse fields, one will have worse amenities. Any system that has more than 1 championship, will have event disparity.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

Ask any kid in FLL that attended the U.S. Open if it felt like any "less" of an event. I only used that word because it was more descriptive. The only complaints I have heard from the FLL U.S. Open is that the event is poorly run and LegoLand is a terrible venue for it. There have been a few teams from WV represented both there and in St. Louis. The kids that went to the open were no less inspired and the event was no less exciting.

To clarify: 2nd place teams from FLL events are eligible for the U.S. Open. It is also open to those U.S. Tournaments who are not eligible to send their champions to the championship due to the lottery system.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

I competed at the Open in LEGO Land in grade 8.

I agree with everything you said there. It felt exactly like a real tournament competition was strong, and the venue was awful.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

Looking at FLL's structure from the FIRST website, you cannot compare their seasonal setup to FRC's.

To use the US Open as your example and compare it to a FRC Championship would be wrong. The US Open, or any FLL Open, would have to be compared to IRI.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

Not necessarily. The U.S. Open, from what I've heard from teams, is actually like a "championship experience," which IRI is not. Sure IRI has the best robots, but beyond that it is a small event in comparison. The U.S. Open in LEGOLand is an official event. If you get first place you go to the championship (assuming your competition is eligible). If you get second (or your tournament doesn't go to worlds), you go to the open.

Plus, I I wasn't directly comparing FLL event to FRC. I was comparing the concept, comparing FLL's championship and FLL's US open. The kids get similar transformative experiences at both events. But one has just a bit more hype and some extra "weight."

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

I think the World Festival/World Championship format works well in FLL - the looks on my kids' faces when they qualified said it all.

However, I'm not sure that the Festival/Championship format would work for FRC as well as it does for FLL. The FLL community doesn't have the (I'm having a hard time phrasing this) continuity of the FRC community. With FRC, the best teams in the world are world-famous year after year, whereas in FLL, a team is only well-known for a year if they score insanely highly on the course. As a result, FLL teams get really excited about qualifying for a championship, whereas FRC teams get really excited about qualifying for the championship.

That's why the World Festival/World Championship format wouldn't work for FRC.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

The US Open is invite only. FRC Championship is pretty much earn your way in. FLL Opens are FLL's IRI.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

Again, proof of concept. If this has morphed in the recent year or two, then I must have missed it because I've stepped back a bit from FLL in the past year or so. But it is my understanding that for 2nd place teams, they're "in."

There used to only be THE US open in California. They might have become more privatized in recent years, but again, the concept is still the same. And they're not a group of teams competing in a high school gym. It's a big venue with lots of big exciting things going on, and a truly transformative experience. While IRI is fun, it is not nearly as much of a "championship experience" as the FLL U.S. one in California is.

And THAT is my main point. Regardless of how they're run, it's still second place teams and a transformative championship experience. I've heard similar stories from FLL students and mentors after returning from STL and from California. My point is that having the second-place teams going to a different event that is not technically THE championship, but still offers similar experiences and inspiration is not a bad thing. Again, if the U.S. Open has changed in the last year or so I'm unaware. But I'm speaking to the way it was before.


EDIT: Just browsed the website. The Open has changed since I was involved in FLL programming. I'm speaking to the way the Open used to be run, which was one single event for US 2nd place teams or 1st place teams for events that didn't win the world festival lottery. This is the concept to which I'm speaking. Either way my original point is about the transformative "championship experience" and whether that is lessened by having one "real" championship and one lower level championship. And the answer to that is a solid no. Sorry for the confusion. I didn't realize things had changed.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

And 2007 (Championship Winner), 2008, 2009 all off waitlist.
2011 Defending Champion bid got us in for a Championship Finalist. We had a season where we had 2 Finalists (WPI & Hartford), 2 Industrial Design awards, and a WFFA, but still technically didn't qualify in season. I like to call that season the best arguement for district style qualifying, because when points were calculated that season we would have been #2 or #3 in a New England district.

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

5136 didn't win the world championship in 2014. All of the teams listed did. If you expand to Einstein qualification alone, the list expands greatly*. When you limit to world champions, as I did, of course the list is short (the list of world champions period is short).

Of the world champions since 2010, a full 25% qualified via the methods you described as not expecting a world championship. If 25% of the population had negative reactions to vaccines, vaccines wouldn't be the immensely beneficial force that they are.

*Just 2015 Einstein:
20, 337, 900, 1255, 1671, 1923, 2512, 3476, 4265, 5012 - 10/32 teams - 31.25%

Re: Proposal for the 2 Championship format
 

The appropriate probability is the number of teams that qualified out of the pool of non-Regional captains and first picks. That would be the right probability. That's more like 10/200 or 5% is my guess. (Pulling out the data is very time consuming.)

In addition, this year was very weird for 3rd and 4th picks. We picked two rookies and two second year teams for very specific reasons during the season that I expect won't ever arise again. A look at 2014 would be better for a representation of past and future games.