Originally Posted by Mr. Van (Post 1482920)

This is perhaps the most relevant piece of information in this thread.

Even if 25% of teams could go to the championship in a given year, it is simply untrue that every team would be able to go within a 4 year period.

As has been pointed out, the Championship is much more about the show (for sponsors, media, etc.) than anything else. It has seemed that more and more, FIRST is focused on this one event and "improved" it with concerts, flashy displays (and paper airplanes?) while regionals in general have had less and less of this show aspect. How many regionals have official "team socials" on Friday night anymore?

What about this: NO CHAMPIONSHIP. Take the money, prestige, college row, displays, etc. and spread it around to the regionals. Give the 85% of teams that don't go to the championship on a regular basis a better experience. Nearly 50% of teams (or something like that) don't go to more than one regional. I suppose that this is what district champs are supposed to be.

Instead of making goal that the championship "experience" be something that a kid on a team experiences once in high school, make the event (regional) experience one that is as good, but happens perhaps eight times.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1482895)

And your last paragraph reflects that perspective--keep the sponsors happy without realizing that the sponsors really want happy participants. Someone else posted elsewhere that maybe FIRST HQ has gotten to wrapped up believing that putting on an extravagant Championship is what makes FIRST go.

Originally Posted by JimInNJ (Post 1482941)

While I respect your opinion, perhaps it isn't completely true for all sponsors. If you were correct, Opening and Closing ceremonies would have been over much sooner, without the line of sponsors coming to the podium to welcome everyone to the show that they helped to pay for, the "XYZ Company Presents" titles of the individual awards, CEOs getting to announce Deans List winners, and on and on and . . .

All of these companies could have just mailed in a check, but they CHOSE to appear and take credit in public for their efforts, and I applaud them for it. If you think that this public exposure makes no difference to at least some of them, then you are truly naive.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1483032)

All of the major sports are trying to reduce the length of their games to keep fan interest. That reduces sponsor exposure (i.e., ad minutes) but the NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA etc have sold it to their sponsors.

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1483105)

Hmmm... And I think I know how it was sold. Not sure if FIRST could do something similar.

There are actually a couple of pitches that could be used. One is "We're trying to shorten game length, if you don't like it you can leave." But somehow, I think they used this one: "We're trying to keep more fans interested. Yes, we know there won't be as many ad minutes, but we're trying to make it so more fans see those ads."

(Then there's the soccer option: no commercial breaks.)

I don't really think FIRST will be able to utilize that second pitch, though. Not until they make it onto TV regularly...

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1482893)

I can only repeat what I've posted below. The reaction we've gotten this year is much stronger than the past 2 years when we were divisional champions.

But I think the bigger issue is what teams are striving to to do. Striving to be one of 8 champions just doesn't have the same panache as being THE champion. Even our biggest sponsor, a university, seems to respond to that difference in emphasis. UCD is now the No. 1 agricultural university in the world. I see it on billboards all over the region. I doubt they would do the same as "one of the top 8" agricultural universities.

Originally Posted by BrendanB (Post 1482834)

The way FIRST is expanding the program in relationship to how many teams move along to the championships isn't inline with what we are used to in today's competitive culture. Something sponsors are more familiar and for the most part would agree with. The NFL, MLB, or NBA can keep adding in new teams but they will still work their way down to one winner. Qualifications (playoffs) might increase but they'll work their way down to a head to head match-up. They won't cut the Superbowl and leave it at the NFC and AFC Championships.

Is that in line with FIRST? Probably not which is where a lot of these debates are coming from because some people feel otherwise. People who enjoy spending a lot of money following their hometown team agree with it and these are often times the same people we are asking to support teams. If your lifelong sports team makes it to the Superbowl and you have the resources to spend lots of money on a ticket you will try to attend. Would you feel similarly in spending the same amount if it wasn't the Superbowl? For some people you'd still go since its the Championship but for some the magic would be lost.

Percentage wise 25% is consistent with what we have had in the past but even if you can sustain that you start diminishing what that level means. To a degree I'm somewhat envious of teams who win the highest awards at the FLL World Festival. The number teams involved and making it down to be the top team on the table or winning in the directors award is a huge accomplishment. Yet as it stands FLL is a broken system because many regions can't send a team every year which is sad.

Originally Posted by Alex2614 (Post 1483643)

Except, as I said, we haven't had "THE" champion in over 15 years. We have a group of 4 champions now. And in the future, we will have a group of 8 champions.

2015 had 4 champions, out of approx. 3,000 teams is the top 0.133% of FRC.
8 champions out of approx. 3,000 teams is 0.266%

Remember, we have 4 teams on a winning alliance, not a "single champion." So the winners from Detroit and the winners from Houston are together on "one winning alliance of 8 teams."

Have you had difficulty selling the fact that you were "one of 4 winners?" My bet is the answer is no. It's more like a "winners circle" than a "single champion," but still a very easy sell. Now bring that up to 8. Still will not be much of a difference.

And there's several proposals that include the 800 team format and is expandable. Dumbing down all of these events so that somehow all participants feel like they're at coequal events is not a good solution for the health of the program.



Okay, let's look at the NFL. Two conferences, east and west, that then boil down to the Superbowl, with only 2 teams, and one ends up the winner. FIRST will now have two "conference" championships. And they are looking at sending the winners from those two events to play for the champions. So, actually, this is more in-line with sports than any model we had before. Most high school sports don't even go beyond state or regional level anyway. And, as said above, as far as coverage in the TV media, a "world championship" featuring the winners from the two international events battling for the crown of victory is much, much more sellable to national mainstream TV media than a 400-team championship. Even just Einstein has too many teams for the "non-FIRSTer" to follow. But they can follow just two teams, best of 5 in a half-hour special on ESPN.

Now let's look at your FLL example. As the number of events, regionals, DCMPs, etc. increase both in the US and beyond, how can we say with certainty that in 10 years, we will be able to sustain a 400-team championship? Will FIRST have to look into only sending some regions to the championships and not others, like FLL. FLL is a perfect example for this! They've not increased the number of teams that can attend the championship at all, even though the number of teams has increased dramatically. And guess what they ended up with? A broken system. If FRC keeps the championship at the same size, eventually, we will get down to a very small percentage of teams attending champs, and championship capacity will be too small for the number of events, again, just like FLL. Is this what you want? FLL did EXACTLY what people on this thread want FRC to do (keep the championship the same size, and see the percentage of teams attending dwindle ever downward as the number of teams and qualifying events skyrockets). Look at how well it worked out for them.

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1483660)

As for playoff events leading up to a single championship, there's a VERY important difference. In NONE of those cases is the championship played in front of a live audience substantially smaller than the playoff venues. For TV there's a huge difference between 20,000 in a stadium and 1,000 in a high school gym.

But the biggest barrier is simply logistics. I and others have pointed out that a separate event at a separate venue is unlikely to get all of the teams from each alliance at the final championship. That issue has been well covered. FIRST HQ's current solution is unworkable unless they are intentionally wanting to fail so they can say "we told you so."

Originally Posted by Alex2614 (Post 1483643)

Now let's look at your FLL example. As the number of events, regionals, DCMPs, etc. increase both in the US and beyond, how can we say with certainty that in 10 years, we will be able to sustain a 400-team championship? Will FIRST have to look into only sending some regions to the championships and not others, like FLL. FLL is a perfect example for this! They've not increased the number of teams that can attend the championship at all, even though the number of teams has increased dramatically. And guess what they ended up with? A broken system. If FRC keeps the championship at the same size, eventually, we will get down to a very small percentage of teams attending champs, and championship capacity will be too small for the number of events, again, just like FLL. Is this what you want? FLL did EXACTLY what people on this thread want FRC to do (keep the championship the same size, and see the percentage of teams attending dwindle ever downward as the number of teams and qualifying events skyrockets). Look at how well it worked out for them.

Originally Posted by BrennanB (Post 1483919)

... FRC should/would NEVER stand for that. ...

Originally Posted by gblake (Post 1483938)

A) Why?
B) According to what authority?

Originally Posted by BrennanB (Post 1483939)

... an FRC teams chances should never be zero to get to the world championship. ...

Originally Posted by BrennanB (Post 1483939)

... Because it's very demotivating. ...

Originally Posted by BrennanB (Post 1483939)

... It sort of sucks to have your end season determined by a lottery system. ...

Originally Posted by gblake (Post 1483943)

My point is that oh so many people in this thread have made oh so many forceful assertions about what FRC is/isn't, and about what will happen if FRC does/doesn't do something, and.... guess what, oh so many of them are flat wrong.

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1483946)

They're flat wrong if you assume that FRC and FLL are comparable. Why and according to what authority are you assuming that?