Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

De La Salle is a difficult standard to use as it's probably the most outstanding example in high school sports, but I'm not a football fan, and I've heard of it. (Incidentally, they're apparently from California, which probably skews the recognition over here on the east coast.) But let's not pretend that either of our anecdotes are reasonable substitute for evidence here. De La Salle football's feature length theater released movie grossed over $30 million dollars total and hit #5 on its opening weekend. Richard's not remotely off-base with this assertion. I actually quite like the analogy; I hadn't thought of teams being celebrities before this connection.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I started my first FLL team 3 years ago, and let me say that FIRST doesn't HAVE TO try to expand FLL. I believe that even if FIRST completely ignored FLL for a year or two that it would still continue to experience its' same tremendous growth for a couple of reasons. The program is affordable, it's easily mentored, and it's SCALABLE/EXPANDABLE within your school district, local youth organization, or even your dining room table, especially when everyone else in the area finds out that the program is available to them too. Startup costs are typically less than $100 per student, and ongoing costs are half of that. With ever-shrinking school budgets and family disposable income, this is a serious concern for parents everywhere. Teams can easily be coached by a teacher or parent without specific engineering skills, thanks to a huge amount of online training material available, not to mention the mentoring from local FTC and FRC teams doing their outreach.

I'm about to be a first year FTC coach, so I'm still learning. I have many concerns about how FIRST has dealt with FTC. My first problem is the way that FIRST has been dealing with this year's new technology rollout. Information has been dribbling out in too small pieces since March, and they aren't sharing the rest of what we need to know until the end of JUNE, but that's a problem for a different thread. My real issue is the way that FIRST "DISPLACED" the 128 winning FTC championship teams to a hotel ballroom up the road SO THAT THEY COULD GIVE FRC TEAMS THAT WERE SIMPLY SIGNED UP ON A WAIT LIST A PLACE TO BE IN THE ACTUAL BIG SHOW IN THE DOME. (I kinda think that my brain understands why, see below.) I realize that I'm probably throwing a hand grenade into the room, but maybe someone can explain this so that it makes sense to someone on the outside of FRC looking in.

Without attacking the current FRC team roster, I wonder if FRC, as it's currently de$igned, is expandable at more than the current annual percentages, as there are a finite number of new Fortune 500 sponsors that FIRST can attract to the program. While the current size is probably sustainable, I really question how much longer FRC can continue to find new "deep pocket" sponsors.

As far as "how to keep FRC around at these events in sufficient numbers and quality to inspire the FLL and FTC attendees", I wonder if I want my FLL and FTC attendees to be "inspired" by the attitudes shared in several of the current threads here on CD about how FRC team members can't be bothered worrying about whether FLL or FTC attendees are there at all, because it's supposed to be all about FRC. I hope I'm overreacting to a rude but very vocal minority here.

I think that you have missed the real reason for the "Championsplit". FIRST's prime constituancy isn't FRC, it's the companies that fund FRC, and FIRST in general. They love to come to the championships and point to the teams that they supported, and be able to say "My company invested well, look at the successful teams that we sponsor!" More FRC teams at championship, more happy sponsors that can point and smile! More happy sponsors, more sponsor investment. If all else fails, "FOLLOW THE MONEY!"

All of these opinions are solely my own, and I sincerely mean no disrespect to any individual, team, or sponsor.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I as curious about the prospect of FIRST emphasizing FIRST programs over others as well. This is from the Chairman's section of the 2015 Admin Manual. I'll post it without comment:
I hope and suspect that a lot of this perception is from an idea that's less "it's supposed to be all about FRC" and more "what I'm doing is FRC". It's not that people are egocentrically conflating these two ideas, it's that it's difficult to see why it matters whether the three programs are together when you only have FRC experience. It's a lack of empathy that stems from a genuine lack of understanding, not a lack of compassion.

I've helped start JFLL teams, my team runs two annual FLL events, I've been an FLL head referee, a head design judge, and more. For FTC I've judged for years and done volunteer training. I've been around both for a long time, more so probably than many/most FRC mentors. But I've never mentored them, and my time at Worlds is spent entirely as an FRC pit supervisor and field coach. I still have trouble wrapping my head around why it's so important--so apparently non-negotiably important--for FLL (and FTC?) to see FRC (and each other?). I'm willing to trust the more experienced consensus, but it takes concerted effort to remind myself that there's no negotiable alternative.

Separately, I do understand the objection and was against the 'take over the city of St Louis and keep FLL and FTC out of the dome' method used this year, though I understand it as a single-year stopgap. Then again, the dome never had much affect on me, and my team has never used a waitlist slot for Worlds.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

One piece of Historical information that I think would be enlightening if someone could put it together is the number of unique teams that have competed at the championship vs. the number of championship slots.

I think the inverse of this, IE the number of unique teams taht have never competed at the championship might be eye-opening as well.

I know the number of teams that have played in elims/playoffs vs. the number of slots is very eye-opening. Jim Z. did a study on that a few years ago, and it was pretty surprising. My guess is Championship slots would be similar. IE, I suspect that about 200/320-400 slots are routinely the same teams over and over... thus the realy mix of championship experience is a much smaller percentage. The 200 new spots this year and next year will support that quite a bit, also, the 200 new spots in 2017 and beyond will dramatically increase the "newbies" or "unique" championship experiences.

I personally do not think that every team needs to compete at the championship. Mathematically, FIRST seems to discuss the 25% attendance as if that will make it so that every team can participate within a 4 year window. Fact of the matter is, the math just doesn't work that way.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

When we go to two championships, getting to the top of one of the two championships is the highest you can possibly do in FIRST. You really think a sponsor is going to devalue you because you went to the absolute highest level possible?
Currently there are 4 champions. Now there will be 8. It is still a VERY small percentage of teams that make it to Einstein and win. No sponsor is going to devalue your championship win because there are 8 teams that win instead of 4. Our sponsors don't devalue our championship awards now that they are done on a divisional level instead of championship level. So we were finalists on our field this year. There were 32 teams that were finalists on their respective fields this year. Sponsors don't care about that, though. Similarly sponsors won't care if there are 4 winning teams or 8. It is still the absolute highest you can go. When we went to alliances, we went from having one world champion to 3 teams on a winning alliance. and then they added the fourth. The number of winning teams has increased by a factor of 4. The number of teams going to Einstein has increased dramatically, especially this year. Instead of 16, there were 32 teams on Einstein. Tell me if any of those teams' sponsors devalue that accomplishment.

As far as percentage of teams attending, you really think a sponsor is going to not sponsor you anymore because you made it to the top 25%? Championships used to feature 25% of teams and nobody devalued that. It won't happen now either.

As far as media publicity for the championship, FIRST is looking into hosting an event with the winning teams from the 2 championships to crown a champion. Won't tha be a lot easier to publicize and televise than 400 teams? It would be a lot easier to follow for people outside FIRST too. A "champion of the champions" event.

It's been proven that teams that attend champs are more successful at obtaining sponsors and support. Those sponsors would still sponsor them if they made it to one of the two championships. Why? Because it's the highest "event" in FIRST, just spread across multiple cities. Only 20% of teams get to go. Or better yet 10% of teams in the East get to go to the east championship. It's still just as marketable as before. Sponsors aren't going to care. They will care that you made it to a top tier, world level event that only 20% of teams in the world get to attend. That is still something very special. And our students are going to get just as much of an incredible experience out of it that they are now in St Louis or Atlanta.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

You had me cheering for you when you made this point. I'm actually on my way back from the first FLL Razorback invitational and I can tell you that you don't need all the programs together for champs if it's a question of inspiring. My team went in this weekend thinking it'd be their last weekend as a team (we have some eighth graders). But even though it was a invitational and 72 teams and not worlds, my team has unanimously agreed to continue the team again and asked me to mentor again. The eighth graders asked me the soonest possible time they could join FRC. Being at a FIRST event inspires you, and I think it's important to remember that. If you have FTC, FRC and FLL champs separate, it's still okay, I feel like the kids were more inspired by the other teams, the teams who did amazing, than any other type of robot. FIRST is designed to be inspirational at every level, and that's the reason I love it.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

That's something I've been thinking about. As your percentage of teams at champs goes down, the number of unique slots will probably go down too, as more powerhouses are born. I don't want it to be the same 400 teams every single year with little margin for new teams. And as the number of events increases, we're going to run into a problem. It's like Einstein. How many "new" teams were on Einstein every year until last year? Not very many. It was a lot of the same teams over and over again. And when they doubled the number of teams on Einstein, alas, we saw many teams who it was their first time to Einstein, and thus, now get to go back to their communities and sponsors and tell them about it. The sponsors don't care that there are twice as many teams on Einstein as there were last year. They care that THEIR team was there. Likewise with two championships.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I see the point you are making however I wouldn't go as far as to make a generalization that all sponsors are the same because there are companies out there who take success seriously because its what they live for on a daily basis.

Will a lot of sponsors care about the changes in the FRC format moving forward? Like you said probably not it is still the highest level in FRC.

Are there some that will care? Yes.

Just like FIRST has mentors and students who participate in this program the same can be said for some businesses who sponsor teams. Some do it because its good business and they feel it is their obligation to support local organizations. Other companies do it because they like donating to a STEM program in line with their mission statement to make the world a better place while providing internships for local students. Some do it because they want to see the local program go far because what's better than showing off your company? Showing off the best robotics team in the world that you helped support. Their perceived value in making it to the highest level and winning is diminished so incentive to continue funding at that pace is decreased.

These relationships between companies and teams do exist so to assume that all sponsors don't care isn't true.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong but its a reality for teams.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Honestly? Yes. Absolutely.

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm glad you have that relationship with your sponsors. We do too, for the ones that understand FIRST and/or us well (Boeing, Sikorsky, etc). But in terms of marketing? Public recognition? In terms of attention grabbing and press impact and sponsors just being recruited? The buzz word isn't "highest level of competition" or "Region". It's "World". And not just in terms of "Champion", we've seen it as "World Finalist", "World Semifinalist", and to a lesser extent with "World Division Finalist". Everyone that gets an award, that even gets to Worlds can potentially benefit from that title. We've also been "Regional Champion" and "Region Champion". It's not even close.

People don't care how many Champions there are--they rarely even think about it--they don't care how qualifying works, the don't care about the bracket or the snake draft. Headlines are built around "World Championship". The R in FIRST comes from things that are easily comprehensible to the public: that's the entire point and method of going mainstream. "World" is a very big one of those things. People that already "get it", people that can put this in the FIRST perspective, are not the target audience that anyone's worried about losing with this publicity change.

You can believe this about all teams, but realize that you're speculating. (Your language doesn't tell me that you are.) I speculate that it will matter, based on the way my sponsors jump at the word "World". To be honest, if we marketed Worlds as "only 1 in 4 teams gets to go", we'd lose a lot of interest very quickly. No one thinks "a quarter of teams make it" when they think "World Championship".

I'm also not sure how you're getting "10% of teams in the East get to go to the east championship". How can you make the point that expanding the number of slots at the "highest level of competition" won't affect recognition by invoking a slot percentage that's half of what it was this year? FIRST's goal is 25%, unless you expect it to be that biased against the East even with their attempts at balancing. (Or unless you mean that half of the eastern teams (in the southeast) actually go to Huston? I don't think that's what you mean, but if so, I have to point out that it's it's both a deceptive statement and an example of why this gets so complicated to explain without reasonable buzzwords.)

This is great to know. In wonder if HQ would be willing to poll these sorts of issues with FTC and (J)FLL teams. The ones I've judged seemed pretty inspired already.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I believe I had blatantly proved this false
earlier.

I don't have much else to say to that other than the fact that this idea is wrong.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Poor word choice on my part. I was just trying to say that going from one event to two events takes the 'wow' factor or 'cool' factor away from the championship

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

There were 8 divisions this year. Twice as many as before. Now those 8 divisions will just be split up into 2 cities. If the 2 championships have 4 divisions each (with 400 teams each I believe they will), there are still just as many division winners and finalists as there were this year. Still just as many teams on Einstein as this year. You just have 8 winners instead of 4. Who was complaining when we doubled the number of teams on Einstein this year? Who was complaining when we doubled the number of division finalists? I certainly wasn't. And now we just take 4 of those fields and put them in a different venue. Market it to your sponsors as one world championship, spread across two cities. It's still called the "world championship" and the percentage of teams that go are similar to what they used to be.

Tell me how many sponsors were uninspired by a team that made it to the championship when there were 25% of teams attending before? Give me a concrete example of a sponsor that said "well 25% of teams get to go, what's so special about that? We aren't going to give you money." Because I can give you several concrete examples of exactly the opposite happening when 25% of teams got to attend before.

Give me an example of a sponsor being uninspired when we went from one winning team on Einstein to 3. Or from 3 to 4.

It's still the highest level you can get. Still a world championship event. Just now with 8 winning teams instead of 4. Spread across two cities.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

FIRST doesn't use the term "World Championship" anywhere, they just call it "the Championship" or "the FIRST Championship". Are you seriously going to tell your sponsors that two events on different weekends separated by over 1000 miles is one "world championship"? That is extremely dishonest.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Both teams that I have been a part of have knowingly and purposefully avoided using the 25% number. For one, it's a devaluation of the team's success (multiple Einstein berths, a regional win streak). For the other, what does it say about a team that can't make it to Worlds after five years when 25% of teams do it? Especially after saying time and time again that making it to Worlds is our goal?

There are definitely sponsors that are in it for STEM, and who "get" FIRST's message and believe in it. The problem is that any FIRST team worth their salt will find these sponsors relatively quickly (within the first few years). If these sponsors do not sufficiently cover the operating costs of the team, then you have to find sponsors who AREN'T super-gung-ho for STEM education. The first group of sponsors don't need convincing (sometimes because they're involved with FIRST already). The second group does.

And a great way to do that convincing is to chart accomplishments. Some teams tout Alumni Graduation rates in comparison to their peers. Others draw on on-field success. And different sponsors look for different things.

So no, I have never been told by a sponsor that they won't sponsor us because of the 25% number, because we never give them access to that number in the first place. On the flip side, you do have a very-outspoken example in this thread of a Championship team that has received buckets of attention (that they will probably turn into sponsorships) because they are the World Champion. And I can point out a couple other examples of that happening elsewhere as well.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

No, but I will tell them that 25% of teams make it to the "championship level." And our rookie year when close to 25% of teams went, nobody thought any less of it than they do now. It may not be one "event," but they're both the "championship level." It's still going to the championship. Just some teams go to one event and some to the other. It's still the highest you can get. And if winning one of those events is the absolute highest you can go in FIRST, what sponsor is going to say no to you because you got to the highest level there is?