Chief Delphi - ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137175)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblake (Post 1485169)

Kevin - I wanted to see how much I agreed or disagreed with you about this; so I looked for the posts containing the "average team" phrase you quoted. I came up empty.

Which posts are you referring to?

Blake

Sure, people didn't generally use the phrase "average team" very often.
However, it has been discussed how the top teams will be affected, and how the program as a whole will be affected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim (Post 1484543)

For the program as a whole, the split does not and will not matter. For the program as a whole, getting two winning alliances does not and will not matter. For the program as a whole, losing specific teams does not and will not matter. FRC as a program can and will go on, regardless of whether it has the same feel to it. (Note about losing teams: I don't think this will actually happen, but even if it did, it wouldn't have an impact on the entire program)

For many/most students, the split, getting two winning alliances, and losing specific teams will not change their experience in FRC either as a STEM program or as a competition. For many/most teams, the split, getting two winning alliances, and losing specific teams will not change what they do. Even for many/most mentors, the split, getting two winning alliances, and losing specific teams will not affect their opinions on the program.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1484209)

I'll bite. But first the most important aspect of FIRST is not to motivate existing teams. It's to create an environment in which individuals in STEM careers become models of respect for student. And along those lines, specific STEM programs/teams become "stars" that have a fan base much like teams and athletes have in sports. This was Kamen's key insight as how create a STEM program that is DISTINCTIVE from other STEM-oriented education programs. In other words, FIRST should not become like the Siemens Competition in MST.

1 & 2) The top 10% of teams that aim for Champs every year will not work as hard to create engineering solutions to face the best in the world without a better than 50% chance of attending Champs. They will then not inculcate the same work ethic that shows up in outreach as well as Regional/District competitions, which will then lead to less motivation for at least 50% of the remaining teams if not more.

3) We already know the answer to this one: Prior to the start of FIRST, students pursuing STEM majors and careers had been steady since the the 1950s. In other words the other STEM programs have been failing in motivating students. I don't believe that FRC has been widespread enough for long enough to yet have a measurable impact on this trend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblake (Post 1484006)

So... In this hypothetical future, in each/any year, in the regions subject to the lottery that year, what percentage of the program's teams/communities will then decide

1) That the 1 in 2 chance that on-the-field excellence won't result in post-regional play, sucks so much motivation out of them that they decide to more or less permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture?

Blake

Quote:

Originally Posted by waialua359 (Post 1482100)

As stated earlier by others, the 1% represents a greater significant amount of influence and inspiration than the percentages suggest.
When you look at who these teams are, many of these programs were started a long time ago, or consists of mentors that came from other programs from much earlier. These mentors (many of which are former students) are critical for FIRST to succeed and grow.
In looking much deeper, it would be interesting to further research how these veterans became involved with FIRST. I always thought the majority of the best teams that succeed in the competition aspect still do so today because of how they became involved in FIRST initially.
When 359 and 368 first formed in Hawaii, it was not a random selection. We both were successful in racing electric cars as part of the Electrathon Marathon competition since 1996 and when FIRST was looking to expand to Hawaii, the STEM figureheads in Hawaii looked to both of our schools first.
Other examples include:
148 who is an original team and their partnership with IFI-sponsored team.
610 and 1114 consists of mentors who were from 188, the 1st Canadian FRC program.
118, 233, 254, 399 are veterans for FIRST due to their association with NASA centers.
67, 33, etc. have GM, Chrysler, and other big industry roots.
Tons of other inspiring programs of which the list goes on and on.

These generous, outstanding mentors are your stakeholders. Inspire and support them and they will ultimately make FIRST a better program year after year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iVanDuzer (Post 1482198)

So yes, that's every single Hall of Fame team stretching back to 2005 that has achieved at least moderate levels of on-field success. This seems to point towards what many others (especially CitrusDad and AdamHeard) have been saying: the "top 1%" (or maybe consistently top 10%) of FRC teams are the most inspirational and impactful, and are the best at growing FRC.

(That's not to say that the 99% don't pull their weight - they do. But generally, FIRST has seemingly paired on-field accomplishments with the Chairman's Award, at least at the highest level. What does this say about splitting the on-field competition, and its possible effect on motivation and inspiration?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knufire (Post 1482088)

Adam mentioned this earlier, but I'd like to reiterate that those top 1% of teams do a pretty significant amount of behind the scenes work to help FRC function the way it does. From key volunteer positions to helping start new teams, I'd argue that FIRST is shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can get away with demotivating their elite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblake (Post 1484274)

I think we agree (you predicted low percentages of teams would be affected) more than we disagree, about the central point I wanted to make earlier.

I really don't want to get into an argument. I've said my piece about how in order for a competition to survive, the top-tier, hardcore crowd needs to be motivated.
You can agree or disagree, but honestly this thread seems to have mostly derailed into an ideological argument between a few individuals (whom I applaud for standing up for what you believe in), but I think more discussion should go into what matters:
How to solve these problems for the post-2021 era,
instead of bickering over what is clearly a fundamental difference in how you see the FIRST program.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective

People fighting for the single championship or the double championship will fight for that idea for 2016 or 2021 or whenever. So asking for ideas for the 2021+ Championships will only illicit similar responses.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1485178)

You can agree or disagree, but honestly this thread seems to have mostly derailed into an ideological argument between a few individuals (whom I applaud for standing up for what you believe in), but I think more discussion should go into what matters:
How to solve these problems for the post-2021 era,
instead of bickering over what is clearly a fundamental difference in how you see the FIRST program.

Oh? & LOLz!

If the splitting compromise isn't a problem, then there is nothing to solve. So, I think many of the thread's contributors are going to look elsewhere when they spend their time taking care of what matters! ;)

In other words, you will have a hard time rallying people to fix a problem they don't think exists (and that is how things should work). That's the reason it's useful to do some amount of bickering.

On a slightly more serious note, there is such a wide spectrum of opinions to choose among, I truly was just curious which posts you disagreed with. Thanks for the clarification.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective

Quote:

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1485179)

I don't think so.

Now, the reason I'm saying that is because I think that if the community had some input into the split before it was announced, the announcement would have gone over very differently. I'm aware that HQ keeps an eye on CD; I'm pretty sure they've seen all the discussion.

I'm not even sure that anybody's really actively supporting the double championship model (most of what I've seen tends to be "it's happening so we'll make the best of it" rather than "this is a good thing"). So I really think that most people will be aiming for the single championship.

So if we ask for ideas for that 2021 championship series now... I think we might make some pretty good progress in pointing out methods for a single championship to work, while still giving the multi-championship effect (whatever it happens to be) a good shot.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective

Summary of everything below: FRC isn't going to collapse. That doesn't mean the split doesn't matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1485178)

Sure, people didn't generally use the phrase "average team" very often.
However, it has been discussed how the top teams will be affected, and how the program as a whole will be affected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim (Post 1484543)

Just to clarify what I meant--I do think it will change FRC fundamentally. Maybe some people don't mind that change, maybe some like it, but I think everyone should agree it will change FRC.

What I was trying to say was that FRC isn't going to just suddenly disappear like some people seem to be implying. FRC, when viewed simply as a program, will stay fairly similar--as long as there are still students, mentors, and sponsors, the program, no matter how fundamentally different, will continue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim (Post 1484543)

For many/most students, the split, getting two winning alliances, and losing specific teams will not change their experience in FRC either as a STEM program or as a competition. For many/most teams, the split, getting two winning alliances, and losing specific teams will not change what they do. Even for many/most mentors, the split, getting two winning alliances, and losing specific teams will not affect their opinions on the program.

Another clarification--there are many, many people the split will affect. How many is a different question. I can say, for a fact, that there are students and mentors who this will not change much for them, because there are many people on my team like that. If we don't qualify, it'll probably be like 2014 again: a few of us will follow it, but the vast majority will just hear of it afterwards. If we do qualify, will the fact that half the teams are at a different competition, lack of a "final" match to watch, or the lack of competitiveness in general (assuming this does happen) change their opinions? I don't know. At first I'd have said yes, because it matters to me. But the more I read the posters on this thread, and the more I think about how my team viewed champs, both in 2014 when we didn't qualify and in 2015 when we did, makes me more and more confused.

For reference, this is what I said much earlier in this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim (Post 1482085)

I'm going to ask you something: if aiming for the top is what has been pushing teams on, and what has created the powerhouse teams, do we want to lose that?

FRC as a program will go on without them. Even if (and I don't believe this will happen, but just imagine) the top 10 or 20 teams suddenly disappeared, the program isn't going to just collapse. But FRC as we know it will not be the same, and not in a good way.

So much of the awe, inspiration, and "how is that even possible?" I felt this year came from watching the top teams. Staying up to watch 148's reveal over and over (and it came out at like 11pm), reloading CD until 254 posted their reveal, looking through all the pictures and videos of 1114 my friends and I could find to try and figure out how their robot worked, watching the webcasts as 2056 won their 22nd regional in a row, plotting data to see how high an OPR of 158 really is, talking to various teams at champs, watching the matches on Einstein...if these experiences were possible because of the desire to be the top--and some teams getting there--is that bad?

I still stand by that. I still really dislike the split champs. I still dread the fact that the split could mean anyone misses out on the inspiration they would have gotten from watching top teams, watching final matches, or anything else. I still hope that in 2021 there will be a way to get out of this.

I do want to say: FRC is not going to collapse. Not every student is going to care. Not every team is going to be upset the way CD is. Some of the arguments have seemed to imply those things will happen, and I think it's an exaggeration.

I also want to say: FRC is going to change. Many students do care. Some teams are upset. Some arguments have seemed to say this doesn't exist, and I think that's just as untrue.

I think we need to keep this in context. Then we can continue the argument...

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective

Quote:

Originally Posted by GKrotkov (Post 1485026)

I'm not disagreeing with your entire point or trying to get into a broad argument, but I do have a small bone to pick with this one sentence. I don't think that past failure always indicates future failure; if we're Engineers/Scientists (or pretty much anyone, now that I think about it), then we iterate and improve. As Randy Pausch said in his last lecture*, "failure is not only acceptable, it's often essential."
* Which, by the way, if you haven't heard, I highly recommend: http://www.cmu.edu/randyslecture/

Your perspective is an interesting one that I probably wasn't considering--that of the optimist that an institution can learn and adapt from its failures and mistakes, and improve it's course. And I would say from my experience with engineers that they very often fall into that category.

I on the other hand from the more cynical economists' perspective (remember we coined the term "there's no free lunch." :yikes: ) In that world, institutions and organizations are influenced by internal and external interests, and really only adapt when those forces change.

And thinking about it more, I can see examples for both views. Apple is a great example of a firm that learned and improved. On the other hand, Microsoft seems to have fallen into a rut. I watched the nuclear power industry keep thinking that it could engineer it's way out of its problems, but even now as they try to reboot in the US, cost overruns continue to pile up. I think as an organization becomes either more bureaucratic or more behold to specific interests, it is less able to learn and adapt internally. (And I'm guessing that I could find research literature that supports that premise.)

FIRST has shown that it is able to adapt. After a rough year with rules interpretations and other issues, they brought in Frank Merrick to run FRC. That has been quite successful (although this year's game design seemed to have slipped by QA/QC). And maybe I'm being too hard on FIRST.

On the other hand, this decision is really being run at the top of FIRST, and FRC is only a third-order consideration (I've written about that elsewhere). So my statement expressed concern that FIRST HQ may not even be focused on the potential impacts unless we highlight those issues and propose viable solutions. I wouldn't take my statement as past failure always indicates future failure, but unless an organization demonstrates adaptability, my default is assume continued similar behavior into the future.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblake (Post 1485169)

For my part, I wasn't referring to specific posts, but I was primarily concerned with the communications from HQ itself. Of course, HQ did not speak of "the average team", but they did talk about teams that attended the championship.

Their initial announcement with their "exciting news" emphasized that more people would be able to attend. Then, their presentation at the town hall emphasized that more students would have access to that life changing championship experience. It was very clear from those communications that in their mind, the championship experience was something enjoyed by people who were at the stadium. They wanted to open that up to every student at least some time during their four year experience.

I looked at that and it seemed to me that they were acting as if the teams beyond the walls had no stake in the championship at all. They didn't want to limit the championship to specific teams, but also to allow "average teams" (not their words) to experience it. So, in some ways, it was very much in their minds to make sure that the average teams would be affected, but they seemed to think that the only effect would be during those years when they attended. The HQ communications didn't come out with the other part of the thought, that "average teams" would not be affected by changing the way winners are chosen, but it was clearly part of their mindset. i.e. The only teams affected by having two championships would be teams that were vying to be on the championship alliance.

That point was driven home to me when their system for updating standings had a technical glitch during champs, and they didn't bother putting in a backup. Why should they? The people in the stadium had no need of it, and the people outside.......did they matter anyway? Too much effort I guess.

Next, there was the survey. And there it was again. What would you like in a championship? And it was all about activities inside the dome. The bias that shone through clearly in that survey was that their goal was to find out, from among those who wished to attend, what they would like to happen. To those not attending? Not really all that significant.

So there was a continual refrain all around the theme of making the best possible event accessible to the most possible people.

Contemplating that, it made me wonder about something, and I'll speculate on the subject again here. The people at HQ put a lot of effort into making a spectacular event, and their event has been wildly successful. Their day to day work lives had a great deal to do with creating the setting for the event. Did they get confused about what was the setting, and what was the event? The event was a world championship. Starting in 2017, there will be two settings a lot like this year's, but there won't be the same event.

And how does that affect the "average team"? A district match is more than a standalone competition. It's a qualifier for a district championship. The district championship is more than a standalone competition. It's a qualifier for the world championship. Worlds isn't just a standalone competition. It's the culmination of an entire season. The way you end the season influences the entire season, for everyone, not just the people who make it all the way. They've redefined the structure of our competition.

But, does it really matter to an average team? In my time, my team hasn't made it to district champs. Will it be better or worse for us now that we have a slightly better chance of making it to a half-championship than we had of making it to the current championship. Surely it doesn't really matter?

I can't be absolutely certain what effect there will be. Trying to figure out why it mattered to me, or felt like it mattered, was very difficult. After all, four banners versus eight? Is that really a big difference? No. it isn't. However, there is one climactic championship moment now, and there will be zero in 2017. They will be replaced by two sort of climactic moments. Anyone watching from afar (i.e. most of the "average teams") will have lost a little something.

It won't be awful. It won't be the end of First. But it won't be the same. With the right marketing, presentation, adjustments to plans, etc, it could even come out as good or better than the current way of doing things, but first it has to be understood why there's discontent with the plan, and I'm certain that not everyone gets that yet.