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.