Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Of course we're all speculating but I disagree with your premise that students will find other inspiring programs. As I mentioned earlier, the education landscape is full of stagnated STEM programs that haven't made a dent in the STEM path. The fact is that many students who were not predisposed to STEM in the first place will not be attracted to those other programs--cheerleaders, fashion designers, artists. FRC represented the first truly innovative program since the 1950s.

And I've witnessed another program make the same sanguine statements about its existence and failed to see how it's decisions would affect it's future. I've been involved with the core Olympic sport track & field for 40+ years. The sport thought that being the centerpiece to the Olympics would protect it. The arrival of professionalism was a key moment that the sport has badly mishandled. It's now fighting for its place among the minor sports, even in Europe where it was king for a long time. Making a series of poor decisions can create existential problems. The combination of championsplit and this year's game design raise questions about whether FIRST HQ is prepared to make those existential decisions properly. Track & field has not been.

To some extent we all draw from our own experience, and try to look outside of it where we can. I've seen one of my most beloved sports founder; I hope to help another avoid the same fate.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'll put in an observation from the side, but Rachel probably has a different viewpoint (and I always find her posts insightful.)

There are two important differences here: First drama students in general are a different group with very different motivations. Think of "left" vs. "right" brain. Drama students are much more likely to be motivated by both internal artistic desires, and by wanting to socially connect with their audiences. They are simply wired differently than many of the kids who go into FRC.

Second, and more importantly, the school play isn't trying to reach out to students beyond those already interested in drama. On our team about half work REALLY hard, but they are either veterans or already very interested in STEM. The other half are either new or trying out a STEM program because it has several fun elements.

It's this "other" half which is the real target of FRC. Building FRC robots is not the technically most challenging thing that an advanced STEM student can do, but it is the most competitive and socially interactive way to working on a technical challenge. And by making the challenge achievable for most students, it allows and invites many new and exploring students into the program.

So I believe the drama example is not an appropriate comparison to FRC.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

OK, then I'll cite bands. All of my HS STEM buddies, but one, were also HS band members. So, if we were anything close to typical, that puts the left/right brain argument in doubt. I'm confident that proper statistical data would confirm that it is a red herring, in this context. There is some merit in it, but it doesn't dominate this question.

We worked hard, we excelled. We did not contend for local or regional titles. If our band (or our school's drama dept) had had a primary mission of outreach in addition to our other goals, we (they) would have done it.

The point is that whatever programs' goals might be, students are perfectly capable of becoming passionate about those programs, without needing to crown a single world champion alliance.

I am loath to inject any sports analogies into this (there has been enough of that already); but I'll point out that my HS football and basketball buddies also worked their buns off, knowing full well, before even pre-season practices began, that they were not going to post-season play unless something very unusual happened to the other local teams.

Crowning a single world champion alliance is not crucial to FRC's success.

That is my thesis, based on what I have experienced and learned from outside sources, and I remain unswayed.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I wasn't proposing any new formats as better or worse.

I was asking readers to imagine a future in which the 2015 format is obviously untenable; and to imagine that FIRST *might* create a post-local competition format sort-of-maybe-similar-to the current FLL format.

When readers imagined that wild-guess at a future; I asked them to imagine whether the FRC teams in that future would all get mopey and depressed. I think that instead most readers will agree that the program would probably do just fine.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

FTC, VRC, several autonomous vehicle competitions, several software challenges, are all available as solid alternatives right now.

FRC isn't the only game in town, or even the only successful game in town right now, not by a long shot.

In one sense, that's good because none of those programs are as big as most of us would like them to be. We need them all.

We also need them all because one-size-doesn't fit all.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I wonder what would happen if VEX decided to have a division that played at FRC scale...

*shudders*

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I agree wholeheartedly!

My high school band didn't even compete. Pretty much every other high school band in our state competes, but we didn't, because our goal was not to win a competition, but to entertain. But other schools that did compete, know fully well that they are not ever ever going to get to Bands of America, which is the closest thing band has to being a "national champion."
Also think about it this way, what other high school sport crowns a national champion? Do the winners of the state football championships all get together to crown a single high school football champion? No, they don't. But that doesn't stop millions upon millions of people gathering to watch high school football around the country. Actually, my state is split up into 2 athletic conferences, in addition to further division between A, AA, and AAA. So we do have 2 state champion football teams in AAA. And nobody saw it as devaluing anything when we split. They're still champions. We just have 2 now, and nobody thinks anything of it.

Having 8 teams crowned as winners instead of 4 is not going to break FRC. In fact, more teams being able to go back to their sponsors As a winner isn't a bad thing at all. Right now there are 4 teams crowned world champions, and sponsors still love ever one of them. They don't think anything of the fact that there are other teams that have also claimed that title this year. So you really think that if they don't care about having 4 champions, that having 8 champions is going to change anything? Nothing changed in that regard when we went from one champion team to two (when alliances first came about). And then 2 to 3. And recently from 3 to 4.

The difference is that FIRST is really the only one (other than maybe VEX) that puts a huge emphasis on the "other" things. Our kids aren't JUST learning STEM, and not very kid goes into STEM. But we've had kids who were inspired to go into business or English or Education BECAUSE of FIRST. Meaning FIRST is successful in producing leaders in non-STEM fields. Additionally, because of this, FIRST is attractive to students who would not otherwise think about STEM. Many of these other competitions, software competitions, etc. only really appeal to those who are already interested in STEM. FIRST has the "cool" factor and the attractiveness to those who are not inclined or interested in STEM because they also have a place here.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

CitrusDad - You, I and many other people have discussed this to death - What do you want to accomplish?

My goal has been to get Championsplit opponents to stop investing so much energy in disliking something that I feel has only a minor effect on something that is a tool used by FIRST, but isn't the central mission of FIRST.

I don't believe that minor change will have anything more than a minor effect on FIRST's success accomplishing their central mission.

If dedicated and passionate people put less energy into disliking the Championsplit, they will have more energy available for other activities.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I was actually going to bring up band as well, and I did some competitive Shakespeare and public speaking back in those days. (Disclaimer: I was top tier in band but sucked at everything else.) Did we work hard for non-competitive field shows and for unjudged public speeches? Definitely. But did we (we being the people I knew in the activities well enough to judge) work harder for competitive situations? Almost universally, and by a lot when it was an award we wanted. We worked our tails off for football field shows, but only competed in parades. The atmosphere for parade discipline and practice was totally different--much higher. I see the same things with my military cadet color guards, and a number of other activities that have both competitive and non-competitive aspects. Intrinsic motivation is an incredibly powerful thing, as are motivations like positive peer pressure and team cohesion. And yet putting competition on top of that still contributes for many people.

I don't buy the left vs right brained argument either, but I do think there's a lot to be said about motivating those who don't already have intrinsic interest (the "other half"). Fence-sitters can be made passionate by FIRST, but we all know it doesn't always work. We need all the tools we can get. To this point, I don't think the Championsplit issue in this regard is just about not crowning a World Champion. If HQ had come out and said "next year we're not playing Einstein finals", you'd see some of the arguments we see now, but not all of them.

What FIRST was trying to do--at least I thought and the news article titles made pretty clear--was create a "Super Bowl culture" around FRC. Would professional football players work incredibly hard at their jobs if there was no Super Bowl? I'd bet so (though the money probably helps). But would football culture in the US be the same without it? Hah. There are probably millions of current and previous youth footballers who would crack up at that question, not to mention the billions of now-eaten chicken wings that wouldn't be. I'm not a football fan or a soccer fan, but I watch the Super Bowl. I've spent the last several World Cups outside of the US. These things eat cultures in ways that blow past--that completely dwarf--their typical fan base. Because they are THE Championship. You throw away a lot more than a Champion when you throw that away.


For the record, any energy I'm putting into this isn't invested into a dislike of the Split. It's invested into a dislike of FIRST's process of the Split decision (and announcement). That to me is not a molehill, it's a warning sign. I'd prefer not to Wile E. Coyote off any nearby cliff.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

There are perfectly fine counterarguments to things like the Superbowl (who was the year 2000 College Footbal World Champion?). The existence of so many counter-examples for every example cited on any side of this discussion means that there is more than one path to success. It's not an either-or topic.


If you didn't know that many programs (including the current FIRST) operate that way, you do now.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Yes! Productivity over negativity! Why don't we all just wait until it happens to see if we like it or not. We can't change it, so let's just see how it works. I imagine that very few people comparatively will actually care. And those that DO leave over something as silly as this, I hope you find success elsewhere. Those of us that still care about FIRST's ACUAL mission (which is not to crown a single champion, sorry) will stay. And the program will still grow without you.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

No, the existence of so many counter-examples for every example cited on any side of this discussion means that there is more than one pathway that potentially will not lead to failure. This is an entirely different thing that saying there are multiple ways that will lead to success. Effectively facilitating success requires an understanding of the mechanisms by which you're working and mandates a considerable and continual effort on the part of the actors. Discussion of problem points like this is a critical cornerstone of that process. (But do not to "like this" as implying a blanket acceptance of all horse beating, dead or otherwise.)

Hah. I survived the IFI incident. This didn't surprise me. I know I'm swimming the wrong way against the current. That doesn't mean I'd like it to continue.


Emphasis mine. This is a very tiring and incredibly insulting oversimplification of your opponents' arguments, and I'm frankly sick of it. Represent your (general "you") position, attempt to reach consensus about the future, but for the love of God stop with the logical fallacies against people with whom you (general "you") disagree. Please. I'm getting sick.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I agree... and disagree. I'm not in favor, but I can be convinced. I'm not totally opposed, either.

Conditions of convincing (or alienating) are aimed more at the Inspiration and Recognition aspects than at competition. There are ways to deal with the whole "one world champion alliance", but if the other two points suffer, that's a bit harder to deal with.

I agree that a "wait and see" attitude is best.

But I disagree--very strongly--that we can't change it. We CAN. I'm not talking about doing away with the split here. I'm talking about influencing what happens NEXT. The NEXT split. The NEXT batch of inspiration and recognition. 5 years from now, when the contracts run out, where will we be?


Just to look at something, I've attended Champs in Epcot, in Houston, and in Atlanta. (Haven't made it to St. Louis yet.) Each was different. It's interesting to go back and read the threads on just the location change. Now... not only is there a location change, there's a second event. This ought to be interesting seeing it all shake out...

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

OK, I'll rephrase "The existence of so many counter-examples of success for every example of success cited on any side of this discussion means that there is more than one path to success. It's almost certainly not an either-or topic."

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I don't see how this addresses my point. Success takes more than examples, it takes understanding of the mechanisms behind the success of those examples. It takes correctly applying those mechanisms if possible, or changing if not. It also takes work. Both of those are facilitated by discussion over problem points like these is critical to all of those requirements.

This. A thousand times. This needs to be discussed, because it does matter. It needs to be subject to continuous discussion, because it is and has been a critical step in making things happen.