Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I would say the motivations for the vast majority of FIRST teams remains unchanged. I would also contend that while the "1%" does frequently help the community a lot, there's plenty of the "99%" that do just as much for the community. Lest we forget the team best judged a role model for other teams to follow played a grand total of four playoff matches in four events this season.

While I don't support the split championship, the attitude that the elite somehow do more for the community than other teams and thus deserve to be catered to more than other teams is just plain wrong.

Similar, I don't like the attitude that because FIRST employs a sports-model that it is a sport and should do everything like sports. FIRST is more than a sport.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'm saying that the we shouldn't be framing the conversation in the form of "Inspiration versus competitiveness".

Ideally, we can find ways to increase both inspiration and competitiveness. But when the worldview of many is that these two are direct tradeoffs, such solutions won't be explored and found.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Let me start with a retort to both Jman4747 and Lil'Lavery that they have seen before in other threads where I've posted: Based on my 30 years of professional education and work experience, people do NOT do what they OUGHT to do just because we expect them to do so. They only do so on a consistent basis when we given them the correct INCENTIVES to do so. People do not voluntarily reduce their air pollution by driving less voluntarily; they only do so through a combination of higher gasoline prices and enforced automotive technologies. Charities know that their contributions will decrease dramatically if the charitable deduction is removed from the tax code. If you can provide real, not speculative, counterexamples, then I might accept your premise that elite teams will continue to compete and contribute at their current levels simply because they the community believes that they ought to.

BrennanB is on point. Again, Kamen's brilliant insight was "why fight what our cultural worships? Why not use that cultural pathway already blazed by someone else to promote STEM?

Some of our best marketing geniuses work in the sporting world. Did you know that Nike's "Just Do It" was started 27 years ago? Nike uses the success of the very best athletes to market to masses. They are HUGE dominant sponsors in most sports, and they are the dominant sporting goods company. Why would we think that FIRST has a better thought on how to reach the masses?

Remember the mission of FIRST is NOT to reach just the current team members or those who would go into STEM in any case. They are trying to bring a broader group into STEM. While you might say we are different sports, I don't see the rationale for why we should use a different marketing approach than sports. Why not use the most successful model and build on that?

An additional point that I've made before: We already have other organizations that promote STEM through less or non competitive activities. Why should FIRST move away from its unique and seemingly successful niche? Is there some type of encroachment that threatens the existence of FIRST that I'm not aware of? And even so, isn't our overall goal promotion of STEM and shouldn't we stand aside if someone else has a better widget?

I'm not seeing the compelling argument that says that FIRST should diverge from its current product; only that teams that use competition as motivation should accept a less motivational format that is somehow more inspirational in an unstated way. The counter argument seems to be that many would prefer to be at an event with (the same every year) half of the now less motivated elite teams rather than being at either an event with highly motivated elite teams plus an event with equally motivated not quite as elite teams. I'm not seeing why the former is more inspirational than the latter.

Adam is reiterating what I've already posted earlier here. The INSPIRATION that other teams get derives substantially from the COMPETITIVENESS that drives the elite teams. Do you remember the excitement last fall around Chezy Champs? My take was that there were many following it on CD who were not attending? Who put that on? The World Champion Cheesy Poofs. Do you think that they would have made the effort to gather those teams if they hadn't been inspired by their own success? Do you think that even the lowest placing team was inspired by that competition? I think someone needs to provide an example of how reducing 254's incentive for excellence improves the inspiration that other teams derive from 254's efforts.

FLL is not an appropriate counterexample--it's essentially elementary children and the program is really parent driven. (BTW, this is why AYSO is so successful through age 12 and then participation drops precipitously.) The students are not the primary decision makers, unlike for FRC. In fact, I'm not quite sure why FLL even has a World "Championship". I think a Festival is perfectly appropriate for that age group.

And championsplit is not about creating continental championships (which would be inevitable.) FIRST HQ has not shown any indications that heading that direction is behind their decision, so I heavily discount that motive.

This is not about what is best for an individual team or what individual teams decide. We are working as a cooperative community across all teams, and the the larger point is that FIRST is trying to inspire the entire culture. (The Mentor v Student Led debate is only germane to individual teams that have already been formed.) And as a community, many of us are questioning if FIRST HQ understands what is best for the greater good. As members, we should not just stand back and leave what we think is a harmful decision be made by HQ--we're speaking out.


See my preface above. Your are asking teams to what they OUGHT to do, not what the community has given them the INCENTIVE to do. When those run at cross purposes, incentives will trump.

Ike's story made me ask a question which I think demonstrates my point. Why does Dodge build the Viper, when it has already invented one of the most successful and wide selling passenger vehicle types, the mini-van? Simple answer: Dodge needs a hot singular, identifiable car to inspire through this imagery a desire to buy its mini-vans. The chain of inspiration may not be immediately obvious, but the auto marketing gurus, who are the other hugely successful marketers along with sports, have made that connection. Dodge probably makes almost no money on the Viper. (I'll bet it actually loses money.) But having a noticeable car attracts attention to the rest of its car line. Having a "World Champion" is FRC's Viper that helps it sell all of its new FRC rookie team mini vans.

I'm afraid this could really happen if we lose the motivation for the elite teams. I've seen what those teams do in action. (If anyone thinks of including us in that group, understand that we're really late comers to this.) There is a chain of causation. It may not be obvious to you, but its there. Dean's great insight was seeing it in front of him. Let's not lose it.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Because while the majority of FLL teams may not be run by students, The ones that actually make it to champs are largely student run (aside from administrative tasks) FLL's top level is comparable to some extent. The bottom level however is not.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I will respond to the whole post but to save space I'll only quote the beginning to reference it.

I didn't say teams ought to do any thing. I don't care if they do or not but they did/do seem to want to do it and it is great work so how is splitting championships contrary to said work or a direct hindrance to it? Adam asked why did I link inspiration to championship structure and the answer is I didn't. Everyone saying lack of motivation at the top will hurt their other efforts suggested this.

I honestly don't care how good you do until it's time to make strategies and play matches. I'm not going to spend all my time comparing us to them. Just get the skills, get the knowledge, get the tools, build a robot and go play. Try to win as much as you can but don't get mad if it doesn't go your way.

Also don't act as if this is completely noncompetitive because then it will be, for you. I personalty will not quit or become "demotivated" if elite teams actually just started leaving. All that is is quitting because you can't be the only winner. We are builders not buyers here. I don't need to see the viper just show me the track and give me a budget. When my car is on the start line next to it I'll worry about it.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Folks,

The title (and presumably the proper central topic) of this thread is "ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective".

The title is not "Why I love/Hate the Championsplit Plan", or "Wild Speculation About the Future Behavior of Thousands of People, Based on Little More Than the Various Posters' Narrow/Individual Life Experiences".

Could we try to cleave a little more closely to the topic, please? Perhaps include some actual historical perspectives in our posts? ;)

Blake
PS: Yes, the snark is on purpose. Much more is deserved (I probably deserve a little bit of it for my post made a few days ago), but attempting to preserve a shred of graciousness (and the approval of at least one of my Grandmothers) limited me to what I wrote.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

While this may be your sentiment, its not one I would personally agree with.
Companies like AndyMark, VEXPro, BaneBots, and many others have catered to what teams are looking for. Many of what teams want are based on what previous inspirational and trendsetting teams have done in the past.
When I look at robot designs from 10 years ago, what was rare and advantageous for elite teams back then are common today.
If we expect FIRST to grow as a program, the inspirational designs have to grow as well.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Teams have avoided certain regionals in the past because of bad experience/reputation/etc.

Honest question: what's keeping teams that are competitive in both FIRST and VEX from picking VEX worlds every time? Because on paper I think VEX is going to deliver the better event.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Someone noted earlier that the two sides are so far apart that they aren't even really arguing with each other. It's true. A lot of people can't even understand what the other side is saying, it seems.

So before I go on to respond to an earlier post, I'm going to start by saying that I don't have a really strong feeling on either side. As First grows, and I think it could easily double in size in the United States, and probably grow by a factor of 10, the current Championship model is unsustainable. Something has to change. But what?

Recognizing that something has to change, one possible way to change it is to give up a world championship and go to multiple championships of smaller portions of the world. For those who absolutely hate the end of the world championship, try to work it out in such a way that lots of people could attend, and that teams wouldn't have to miss a whole heck of a lot of school, and cost a heck of a lot of money.

It's possible to make it happen, but it isn't easy, and there are tradeoffs to every solution.

Now, though, to a response that tends to favor the other side, the "one championship" side.

I disagree. In fact, it's enough to devalue the event significantly for almost everyone.

The majority of people in the world don't know what First Robotics is. The split won't affect very many of those people. A few more might see it because their local school's team is going, but I think the media coverage of two very big events will be less than a single big event that has "world championship" in the name.

For those who know about First, but don't participate, World Championship is a very powerful term. An event that is just as big, but not the World Championship, isn't as "valuable". More people will watch a World Championship than a very big regional championship.

For those who attend, attending a World Championship is more "valuable" than attending a regional championship, no matter how big the region nor how many teams are in attendance. This is especially true of teams travelling a long way. I predict that the split championships will drastically reduce international participation. Do you think teams will travel all the way from Australia to attend anything less than a World Championship? I guess we'll find out.

For those who aspire to attend, it's a bigger deal, even if they don't make it. Would the Olympics be more inspirational (and yes I consider those games inspirational), if there were two of them, each handing out gold medals? I don't think so.

For those who never make it past a district competition, which event is more valuable? Most people want to feel like they are a part of something big. Something grand. The mere existence of a World Championship lends a certain gravitas to all levels of competition.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the only people for whom the event will not be devalued are a small number of teams who do not go the the current champs because of the travel cost, but who would go to one if it were closer. That's a non-zero number of teams, but not a lot.



As for the characterization of the "one championship" side of the argument as people as being the "one champion" side of the argument, it is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst a straw man. I cringed when the survey from the leadership had a whole lot of "what's valuable" questions. None of them addressed what I think is really valuable, but they did have a question about "a competition to pick the best robots". I cringed because it showed that even after the controversy started swelling, it was clear they didn't get it.

The FRC World Championship, as it exists today, doesn't pick the best robots. Everyone knows that and almost no one cares. The alliance system, the serpentine alliance picking system, the random assignment into divisions at championship, these all conspire to make sure that it is NOT the best robots that take home the banners. And that's ok. Indeed, it's good. It creates a very unique system that has its own set of challenges, and tensions, and points of excitement, and yet still culminates in a single, unique, climactic moment where three teams emerge victorious. It happens through hard work, genius, and a whole lot of dumb luck, and everyone knows it, but by gum there is one point in time where everyone knows that the clock is going to tick down to zero and one alliance will emerge as the undisputed, number one, set of teams in the whole darned world.

It's not about finding one true champion, but it is about creating that one magical moment.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

All right. If it sounds like the last post puts me pretty firmly in the "one championship" side, that's a fair assessment. That's where my heart is.

My head, though, recognizes that it's not that easy. I can see some advantages to the split as well. It's a difficult tradeoff. But on an emotional level, I want that magic moment.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Nothing. You have a responsibility to your team to provide the best experience possible, and if you don't believe FIRST of FIRST events are the way to do that in your community then you should be going elsewhere. I for one would never fault someone for doing what they believe is right for their community, even if I disagree.

I can't comment on the experience of FIRST Championships versus VEX Championships because I've never had a chance to go to the VEX Championships (though I hope to visit someday!), but I've never had a "bad" experience at a FIRST Championship-- I've had things that irritated me, annoyed me, or made me angry, but on the whole they tend to be very well run and put together.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Yep, that's about how I feel, too.

Blake is pretty much on point with the reason I started this thread. I figured that, with all the "we need to do this" and "we need to do that", it would be a good idea to dig deeper into WHY this or that needs to be done. Sometimes, it's a lot easier to get someone to move X direction if WHY is answered first (and engineers are prime "culprits", if I can use that term--I acknowledge being guilty, and I'll acknowledge answering the question before it comes up on occasion). And in this case, answering that WHY question involves going back and looking at where we've come from.

So, back to the root of the question at hand.

For better or worse, we have 2 championships. At least in theory, this was made to increase inspiration. Theory vs. reality aside, we've got some interesting decisions ahead--either HQ, or us as teams, or even individuals.

I'd like to point out, once again, that for this to work ideally:
--Neither half of championship should suffer in the Inspiration department.
--Neither half of championship should suffer in the Recognition department.
--A single World Champion Alliance is crowned.
--25% of FRC teams should be in attendance at one or the other half of championship (let's give or take 5% here)--this part will need to be somewhat scalable.
--And, we still need to figure out what to do with Chairman's. (This kind of follows from the first two points--still, it's best to call it out separately.)

Now, I know that ideal and non-ideal cases aren't the same. I don't see any way the status quo can be maintained, honestly, unless we give up the 25% number (which HQ may eventually figure out isn't going to work well, but still...). But that means cancelling contracts.

So: How do we accomplish that nice little list of objectives that may (or may not) be incompatible with each other, or with teams' objectives?* And, how do we do it with minimal losses of teams, volunteers, or other necessary components of this culture-change equation?


*For the record, I don't think they're incompatible with each other. But figuring out a way to keep them not incompatible is the really fun part.


(I also recall, from the town hall transcripts etc., that this isn't the way it was "supposed to" work. In FIRST's eyes back in 2011, we'd all be in districts by now, and this whole split wouldn't be necessary. But, we're all slow adopters (OK, MI, MAR, NE, PNW, and IN get a pass on that one), so we get the split. Let's try to make it a temporary one, OK?)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I just spent a good minute trying to understand why Oklahoma should get a pass. But it's Okay because I just figured out what I was missing.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Apologies, EricH. I know you're trying to draw the conversation to a positive conclusion...I couldn't resist.

I'm likely naive and ideal, but I think this is too blanket of a statement. Perhaps a true generalization but not a fair one. I think some people, especially many of us here, do things not for a very clear and understood incentive. Perhaps some of us got involved because of a clear incentive but it is not why we continue to be involved.

For example: Teams that have won World Chairman's continue to do the work of a role model FRC team, even though they do not have the chance to win the award for another 5 years. Why is this?

In addition to what you've said above and previously, I think you're implying that FIRST's most unique feature is it's competitive feature. I politely disagree, it is not what drew me (robots were just cool..and all my friends did it) and it is not what continues to draw me (I'm just trying to get my students to write good e-mails :D) to FIRST.

In my experience, Science Olympiad was more competitive than FIRST was.

I can understand it's what attracts certain people, but it is not universal.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Historically ( ;) ), FIRST did something pretty new this year, because in general, the Hall of Fame Teams are perennial competition winners and (largely) would have qualified for the World Championships based on on-field merit alone.

The following Hall of Fame teams would have qualified based on performances at Regionals or Districts every year since 2012:
1114, 359, 341*, 842**, 67, 254.

The following are also Hall of Fame teams that have put up very strong showings in recent years:
27***, 1538, 236, 365.

And then we have 111, who I have to include here because they were an undeniable powerhouse back when they won Chairman's in 2006.

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?)

* Would have missed this season but will give them a pass after years of dominating MAR
** Also would have missed this year despite previous dominance over Arizona stretching back to 2011
*** Would have made the first list but they didn't quite make it after needing the Chairman's Award to qualify in 2012

Because Culture is incredibly hard to change (see FIRST's every effort to become "LOUD", and still have such little media / external support (in terms of awareness from people / corporations not involved in FIRST)). And these teams have changed their team culture, so it's doomed to stay that way.

Having had the incredible opportunity and experiences of working closely with a Hall of Fame team, it's a total top-down thing. They changed their culture to one of success and Gracious Professionalism, and now new members learn the same attitudes from the veterans and mentors. Rookies get automatically assimilated and upgraded with these values. Yes, I just likened all the Hall of Fame teams to Cybermen.

This is incredibly heartwarming for me, because it says that inspiring teams can't stop being inspiring (unless of course, they just stop existing). But, in general (speaking as someone currently working in Marketing), CitrusDad is right: people need incentives to do stuff. There will always be the Trailblazers, who do cool stuff just because, but the common adopter needs a little poke here and there.

________________________________________


I do want to take this time to thank EricH, Dr. Joe, and many, many others who have chimed in regarding their experiences and /or knowledge of the Early Days of FRC. I'm a firm believer of knowing where you came from in order to know where you're going, and I find these sorts of history lessons invaluable. So, kudos.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

You should have made a big cardboard cutout of this and brought it as your presentation to the Town Hall Meeting.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

EDIT: Mike's graph is correct, but it gets interesting if you compare number of World Champions year to year....

Problem is, that is not an accurate figure. It would be 1 until alliances started. Then 2 plus a backup if I remember correctly. In 2001 I think it was 4, then in 2002 it went back to 2+1 until alliances went to 3 in 2005. It stayed that way until 2014 when alliances picked their own backup so 2014 and 2015 should be 4. 2017 will likely be 6 or 8.... If you talk to the "old timers" there was a contingent at each of those changes that thought the changed would "ruin the FRC experience".
At least we are back to covering history.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

World Championships, not Champions.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Which is more relevant? I'll let you be the judge.

Personally I'm mostly peeved about not getting to compete at an event with 254 and 1114. Both for me and for my students. Even my least engaged students were asking me "How are 254 and 1114 doing? When do they play? I want to watch 254 and 1114 play." Why do they have to choose? Or worse, not even get to choose (not that I mind 1114).

But then I think about it a bit more. A championship with all of the best teams will be limited in size, probably around where the current championship is, 600 teams. FRC in Michigan is going to keep growing. Quite possibly we soon wouldn't be able to compete at that championship because we're not good enough. That would suck.* Maybe I can settle for just one of 254 or 1114.

Maybe this is a decent compromise. Maybe it's not. I go back and forth.


*Don't say "they maybe you should do [whatever] to get better." That's a solution for one team, but if everybody gets better, it's the same situation. A smaller % of teams get to be at the united championship.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Sorry answering on my phone this morning, and was both a little briefer and forgot to hit Quote instead of reply.

I was responding the post before mine from IKE:
I was just noting that the Y axis on the graph was number of world championships, not world champions.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

That is what I get for reading graphs on a phone.... I think this officially makes me an old man....

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Your setting up strawmen. This is not a dichotomous choice of "fully" competitive and "non" competitive. This is a matter of degree. And that matter of degree matters.

And this isn't about your personal motivation--this is about motivating a large segment of the student population. While you are a builder, the fact is that FIRST's target audience--students who are not yet in STEM activities--are the "buyers." So the Viper analogy holds when focusing on the vision statement that was quoted.

Drawing anecdotes from our personal experience isn't necessarily relevant--you need to conduct a large survey of students across the board and assess how their motivations will change or provide a much more general source of information to support your position. And you need to demonstrate that reducing the motivation for the elite teams (which seems pretty well documented on CD) won't have a cascade effect through the FRC community. I know that those are all big burdens, but personal assertions carry little weight. (It's why I have avoided making those sorts of claiims in my posts. I have only referred to what has happened in the last couple of weeks to our team because I think its a unique perspective and is not speculative in any way.) We need to see some form of empirical evidence.

I'm thinking that Adam's point that we're arguing past each other might be revealed by this conversation. I see JM4707 and Lil'Lavery referring to the motivation on their own individual teams. On the other hand, I and many others are looking beyond existing teams to the broader society and how this affects the motivation to join FRC. I see a hierarchy of FIRST's mission, which looks like this:

1) Attracting new students who are only marginally interested in STEM using the sports metaphor.
2) Once students have joined a team, providing a motivational experience so that they continue to participate in FRC.
3) Providing a technical engineering challenge to the most motivated students that further motivates them and trains them in specific skills.
4) Providing a competitive challenge to students motivated by achieving excellence. That competitive challenge becomes the culturally visible highlight that leads back to 1) attracting new students.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Dave, your post is dead on point. However, I have one mild correction that I can support with our own experience--in 2014 the best robot did lead the championship alliance. Try as we might in 3 different competitions and again at Waterloo (as well as at Chezy Champs), 254 proved they were the best robot in the world. :yikes: But your right that outcome rarely holds.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

And as you found out this year, the alliance that generally wins the championship is the competitive alliance that got a steal of a 3rd robot. But that's for a completely different thread. :)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

My statement about incentives is pretty much universally true. While social morales and ethics seem to arise from some "unknown" source, economists have pretty much worked through the incentive structures that motivate them. (Yes, sociologists will hate that I said this.) In addition, once the incentive has worked its magic (e.g. winning Chairmans) the cultural inertia (which is an incentive in itself--often called "status quo bias") keeps that effort going. Plus those teams know that in 5 years they can compete for Chairmans again.

FIRST's uniqueness is not in its competitiveness. There are many (most?) STEM promotion activities are competitive in some way. The uniqueness is the on-field competition which copies the sports metaphor, down to the large number of spectators/participants in the stands and the live commentary. The FTC/VEX scale robots are hard to see from the first level stands in Edward Jones Stadium, much less the third tier. It's that "stadium stage" which is truly unique. And that only occurs when there is a dramatic championship on the line, as David wrote about.

And the attraction need not be universal--it only needs to attract a sufficiently large number of students to be effective and justified. Almost certainly you would be in a STEM activity of some type--you're not FIRST's target audience. Their target audience is our 2013 team captain who wanted to be a fashion designer and saw all of this excitement so she joined the team. She's now a mechanical engineering student. Or 1323's captain who switched from the cheerleading squad at Madera HS.

Or let's talk about the ultimate motivation story. Karthik in his talk at Champs told about how he first refused to join the robotics team, but then the mentor appealed to Karthik's love of sports and how similar FRC is to sports. I don't think anyone will dispute the effect Karthik has on the inspiration for FRC teams. The strongest advocates for championsplit have argued that having more teams able to see elite teams like 1114 is the prime rationale for the restructuring. Where would 1114 be without Karthik? Why would we want to create a system that reduces the motivation for Karthik to even join FRC? Are we going to lose the next Karthik by deemphasizing the sports metaphor?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

In this thread there are a number of proposals (which I summarized in another post here) that maintain the 800 team format but still crown a single on-field champion (and other ideas that allocate other awards between the 2 events.) We can still achieve FIRST's goals and keep what's essential to FRC's success.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Yes, we are very good at getting carried by our alliance mates! ;) Which is why FRC is about more than just building robots.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

So my point was that my only conclusion regarding incentives is that for these students to be doing what they do is, if they did not, they would not be part of that team. The expectations of these students are well beyond those of building a robot and competing.

Why should the poke just be winning the competition or being the best robot builders? Why can't we emulate the poke to be something greater, to be what the same as those amazing HoF teams which you mention above?

I think Adam mentioned this, but I don't see the motivation to win as being contrary to the end goals of FIRST. I just think it's limiting the potential of what can be achieved.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

For me, personally: size.
If I go to the FRC world championship event, I get to sit with thousands of my friends and see robots.
If I go to the VEX world championship event, I get to sit with thousands of my friends and see a screen showing robots.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

You're missing the point here. I'm not arguing that the elite teams aren't, in large, influential off the field as well. What I'm arguing against is the mentality that many have taken in these debates. The mentality that the high end teams both inspire more than other teams, and the implication that as a result their desires should trump those of other parties. I both reject the premise (there are countless teams that are not "elite" that are among the cultural leaders in FIRST) and the implication. Even if the elite teams were doing more to inspire than others, it doesn't automatically mean that their whims trump those of FIRST's organizational demands or other teams. Elite teams should not necessarily have a veto power over how Championship is held, regardless of how certain individuals feel about the incentives it lays forth. While I know it's not intended be to arrogant, this attitude certainly comes off as arrogant. It reads like "We're really good at this, we know what's best for everyone!" Overall, I simply reject the concept that trickle-down inspiration is the only way to go.

To frame this in a historical perspective, this is not the first time that prominent teams and mentors have been upset about change coming to FRC. Everything from changes in the FRC control system, changes in the platform used for FTC, the introduction of the serpentine draft, the introduction of alliances, the introduction of districts, specific regions shifting to a district model, and even previous changes to the Championship qualification structure have drawn the ire of some of the high profile and highly successful members of our community. Yet the vast majority of them have remained intact in their commitment to the goals of FIRST. People have cried "Doom!" before, but the end has yet to come. That doesn't mean that they're wrong in this case, but rather than there are plenty of other perspectives to be considered here.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

But don't you? I can't do a survey that large. I can and have interacted with people in my immediate community and that's what I will comment on. If that isn't a valid analysis of outsider opinion for you than don't read it. A lot of students are and want to be builders. How does selling some other team in another state or country help my team or community? I'd much rather recount our drive and efforts and the fun involved with building our robots and competing at FIRST events.

You are assuming most everyone is motivated by winning and whatever else you are when clearly we and others we have talked to exist.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

You're right, I did miss the point of your post. I was more pointing out that, while the Wolverines aren't a traditional powerhouse team, many if not most of the Hall of Fame teams are.

However, what I'm still a touch irked by is the fact that FIRST did not make any attempt to communicate with these teams before making a huge decision like this. Historically, they haven't in the past, either, but maybe they should start. I never suggested a "veto" process where top teams can dictate what happens to the program, and while I believe that there are many roads to inspire students and mentors alike, I also believe that we cannot ignore the not-insignificant "trickle down" inspiration model that these teams represent.

I 100% believe that if FIRST had asked these teams what they thought of the Championsplit, they would have gotten feedback that considered both the competitive and the inspirational implications of the decision. Instead, we have a contrasting message where FIRST has traditionally given their Highest Honour to competitive (if not dominant) teams, and yet created a system that (at least initially) nerfs the competitive aspects of the program. Likewise, I would like to think that if FIRST informed the then-Hall of Fame teams about the adoption of alliances, they would have seen the point about increasing the coopertative aspects of FIRST (which I believe are one of the main hallmarks of the program).

This "poke" for non-robot-centric teams already exists -- it's called the Chairman's Award. The Chairman's Award uses the same "bait and switch" that the robot uses: you get lured in with a possible shiny trophy, and along the way you change a slice of the world.

Is this true for every team? Definitely not. But in my experience, if you ask the teams that are perennial contenders for the Chairman's Award why they started to run all these programs, why they started to develop these resources, and why they started to work so hard at spreading STEM, you'll mostly get the answer "To win the Chairman's Award."

And I am of the personal opinion that competition turns into motivation which turns into success which turns into inspiration. This isn't a model that works for every team, obviously.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I agree with most of your post, but not necessarily this little section.
Anyone I've talked to on a Hall of Fame or Chairman's team claims that their drive wasn't "to win an award", but more to change the culture of their community, team, and school.
The award for most is just a bonus.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Anyone that asks me about applying for Chairman's Award has always gotten the same response from me:

To do what we've always done, striving to be better, helping others where we can, and making a difference for our current crop of students/school/community.
One of the most daunting tasks is trying to raise money to compete in FIRST. Most teams dont start their year saying lets plan on going to Hawaii 4-5 times per year while doing Robotics. That's us, just the other way around.
We do what we do, in order to survive and receive the funding support we need in order to compete. This in turn allows us to do what I mentioned above. The bonus is we all enjoy Robotics.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Your confusing the end results of what is a tremendous program with what lures students to the program and what are the underlying incentives that drive teams. The beauty of FIRST is that students don't realize they are working hard at learning while they are having fun. Why are they having fun? Because they are in a COMPETITION. Yes, there a few students who are just into the engineering and never see the competition, but they are in the minority. But the bottom line is that the students don't know that they are going to gain all of this experience beyond building robots to compete until they've been on a team a while. And it's the maintaining that motivation from competition through the sports metaphor that we're most concerned about.

But I'm interested in what your vision is of finding motivation beyond the competition poke. My biggest question once you articulate that is how you use it to recruit new students from beyond the boundaries of FIRST and those already with inherent interest in STEM? If you can clearly articulate that vision and how it might be implemented then we can discuss that. I will begin, however, "offering more championship slots" is not a vision and has not be adequately linked to a cause and effect that reaches the target audience I've described.

If you want to both promote STEM and take on motivations in Western culture, that's too much to ask of FIRST. I must part ways with you on that. FIRST has a singular mission. Adding a second one muddies that too much.

Let's start with the justification voiced by many in other threads for why the championsplit should have coequal fields rather than tiered qualification (to paraphrase): The top elite teams inspire other teams and should other teams at the 2 events should have an equal chance of interacting with those inspiring teams. Therefore one event should not be allowed to have a concentration of elite teams. Now those same elite teams are in fact NOT more inspiring and therefore deserve no special treatment. If that's the case, then you should have no problem if the championships in fact do have a tiered qualification system so that the top 400 go to one event and the next 400 go to other. Your position is inconsistent if you both opposed tiered events AND argue that elite teams are not anymore inspirational.

Regardless, you are missing my point--this isn't about catering to elite teams. My point is that FIRST needs the celebrity of elite teams in the sports metaphor to attract students from the broader society. No one has yet proposed a workable alternative model that will be as successful as the sports metaphor to reach widely across our society. Remember Kamen's goal is to change the culture so that scientists and engineers gain wider recognition and students aspire to be like them. You may not remember this ad campaign, but in the 1980s there was a hugely successful ad campaign with Michael Jordan who's pitch line was "Be like Mike." And the implication was obvious--emulate a celebrity pro athlete. This is a fundamental truth of marketing. You may not like marketing truths imply about us, but they are what they are.

So it's not about elite teams trying to "trump" HQs decision; it's about the usefulness of elite teams for promoting the mission of FIRST. Every successful sport needs its elite celebrities. In my favorite sport, track & field, this has become a real problem because too many of the celebrity athletes disappear in non-Olympic years. The sport is now heavily dependent on Usain Bolt, and he was gone last year so interest dropped significantly. In 1960, 80,000 spectators showed up for the US-USSR dual meet at Stanford. This year other than the Prefontaine meet in Eugene (about 13,000), no meet will draw more than 10,000 spectators and most less than 5,000. The elite track athletes now avoid meeting each other because the current incentives tell them to do so. I certainly want FIRST to avoid the fate of U.S. track & field.

Finally, I would say that the elite teams have stuck around because there has always been a unified championship to pursue. And the fact is that the other changes have often made the competition better. But now we're looking at a truly fundamental change. How will elite teams respond? And what if FIRST also designs games that have many features of this year's game? If those 2 factors happened in combination, you would start to see the mentors who drive those teams start to drift away.

Your statement shows that you may be misunderstanding what's the mission of FIRST. It's not to appeal to members of already existing teams. Your attitudes about the attractiveness of STEM are already changed. As I've said many times, FIRST is aiming to reach well beyond your team. It wants to attract students who aren't inherently builders. That's great if that's your motivation, but why stymie the ability to attract others to the program because you have a specific preference? Why should your preference trump everyone else?

And given that preference, I'm don't see why allowing certain teams to focus on competitive excellence as their motivation conflicts with your preference to be motivated by the engineering challenge? Is there an inherent conflict that I'm not seeing?

And if you don't see how expanding FRC helps your program, then we need to have a separate conversation. Remember that your team was started in 2012 because FRC is expanding, so you have been directly impacted by that outreach. And others will benefit in the future as well.

BTW, I am not using personal anecdotes or statements of personal preferences. Please point to any of my posts that allude to my personal motivations for participating in FIRST other than I think this is a fantastic educational program that has the potential to reach a wide swath of the student population. What I have done is relayed what I have learned in my professional experience as an economist which includes an extensive knowledge of the research into the effect of incentives. I also have been a keen observer of sports action and management for even longer. I have tried to avoid any references to my own personal preferences. (It's something that I've developed in my professional work. In one week a few years ago I was called both a "Gringrich Republican" and a "commie pinko." Quite an accomplishment! ;) )

And most importantly I am NOT making sweeping generalizations that "most everyone is motivated by winning and whatever else." I am saying that many students and mentors are motivated by competition, and based on the postings here and elsewhere on CD, the teams that are referenced as being inspirational (see my passage above) are motivated in a large part by competition. And what those teams do on and off the field is inspirational to other teams, even those not motivated by competition. (And I do have the empirical evidence that almost everyone is motivated by incentives. That premise is the basis of almost all economic research. I'd be interested to know if you have contrary research. Winning competitions is one type of incentive.)

Finally, I respond to your posts because we are having a public debate about the fundamental mission of FIRST and I believe that your opinions are representative of a much larger group than just you. I don't view you as an isolated voice--you're expressing concerns and viewpoints that others have stated elsewhere and probably by many others who haven't said anything. So, yes I will challenge your statements and the sources of your statements because they carry weight.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

You know what, fair.

I still think this won't hinder anything we do for recruitment or demotivate us. If it stops anyone else remember that there are other ways to accomplish many of your goals that have been successful for teams who probably have less resources than you do. We "bottom ~%90" teams have outreach tech too.

Finally I look forward to be playing "East Bound and Down" on the road between GA and TX for however long we compete there. Honestly I hate that I'm even still arguing. No one's going to change their mind here, so no more from me on this subject.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

It's only arguing if you aren't trying to look for the best solution.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

My position isn't inconsistent, because that's not my position. You created a strawman, or minimally posited other people's viewpoint as mine. Stop trying to lump all of the people that you have disagreed with into one hivemind.

Notice how that post (or all but one of mine in this thread) was not in response to you. Consider the posts I was responding to before considering whether or not I'm missing your point.

Show me the proof. So far we concentrate our "celebrity of elite teams" at both Championship and IRI, yet to date we haven't seen the widespread cultural inspiration we're aiming for (funny what happens when you suddenly consider that inspiration might not just be aimed at other teams, which also breaks down your opening paragraph's straw man). Perhaps FIRST's approach of more high profile events spread out might lead to more attention from broader society?

I think two regional championships does just fine as the sports metaphor in terms of reaching across society. The people that the "championsplit" impacts are within our own borders as a community, not without it. Nobody outside of FIRST is going to care if we have one champion alliance or two, or if teams from Michigan aren't playing against teams from Texas. Outsideers will be able to understand North Championship and South Championship perfectly fine.

STEM absolutely needs celebrities. The thing is, as you alluded to earlier, FIRST is about recognizing scientists and engineers as celebrities, not teams. FIRST doesn't replicate sports for the sake of FIRST being a sport. FIRST replicates sport for the sake of changing the larger culture. This isn't about making the Citrus Circuits a household name, this is about making Woodie Flowers a household name. FIRST growing as a sport can help that, but it's not the end-all be-all. Not to mention, but the reality is that the outside public doesn't know the difference between the Citrus Circuits and Dawgma. Neither of our teams is going to attract a significant difference in outside public opinion, regardless of our status within the community as "elite teams." We're not even close the point where people outside our own community track the results and learn about teams they aren't personally invested in. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we reach that point by 2020.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

There are multiple things at play here so its not really a simple solution and growing pains are tough. There are many many ways to grow and expand an organization. Different people see different priorities as growth occurs and it can lead to disagreements.

Everyone knows that FIRST is for Inspiration and Recognition.

To me, inspiration and recognition comes from some cool stuff done by some pretty awesome people. How do you get cool stuff done by awesome people? You get them lured in somehow. How do you do that? With a sports model! This ignites growth in the program.

Like many others have said already, the competition is the vehicle. Slowing down the vehicle can slow down the growth. The championsplit does not completely extinguish the competitive fire, but it does not fuel it. It's a step closer to a science fair.

I love working with the kids, but if I had to choose between working with kids to enter a science fair or working with kids to build a robot to compete in a worldwide robotics competition, I'm choosing the later every time. How cool is that, a worldwide robotics competition!

Well, I guess there can be co world champions... that were at different locations... that didn't compete in the same tournament... that's pretty cool...

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Again, you're taking a narrow "I only care about us" view. And that's fine to do, but don't use it justify how other teams and the overall program should be run. The point of FIRST is not to do outreach team-by-team--it's to do it program wide, top down. That's what publicity is about. It's about having teams at more that just your high school.

As for resources, understand that until this year we worked out of shared math classroom and two outdoor shipping containers. We didn't get any money from our school district until this year. So please don't believe that we have a different set of resources that you have. Yes, we have several more years of experience, but that steadily erodes.

If what I responded to was not your position, then your's is not being stated clearly.

You say that no one outside of FIRST will care if we have one champion or not. And I've given you proof that it does matter. The fact that we were recognized much differently this year vs. the last 2 years is a strong example. That we get to meet with a key state senator comes from having one champion.

I blame the fact that there isn't more recognition society wide (which has been the basis of my posts--I've always talked about inspiring cultural change and my point doesn't break down when we go beyond inspiring FIRST teams) on the lack of a strong media campaign by FIRST HQ. I've posted about those shortcomings else, e.g. on the Championship Event Survey thread. We've tried to coordinate publicizing here with FIRST HQ and have heard almost nothing. If no one hears about it, of course it's not going to inspire the wider culture.

Which brings me to lack of celebrity. Yes, eventually we want Flowers to be the type of celebrity (but in fact I think we really want someone not even connected to FIRST itself, but rather groundbreaking researchers and engineers.) However, the idea is that teams can become celebrities. In California, the De La Salle football team is a celebrity sports program. Many sports fans know about them, but most could not name the coach or any of his athletes. DLS has the advantage of being embedded into a sport that has a whole journalist culture built around it. Our team has worked at extending media outreach in Northern California, but we've gotten little help from the FIRST organization. We have 3 teams in the region that have been on the last 2 world championship alliances but there's no coordinated media campaign to exploit this. Instead our team is going to be carrying the ball alone to promote FIRST locally. If FIRST hasn't even tried to effectively communicate the event to the media, how do you know that no one cares.

And sports/competitions can become suddenly popular with the right packaging. Two examples: poker and ultimate fighting. (OK, not the most wholesome...)

So I don't know why you want to make it even more difficult to reach the wider audience by splitting the champions? Every other sport is moving towards consolidated championships to increase visibility. Why run counter to what seems to be the collective wisdom? Again, I haven't seen how your rationale leads to a wider reach. Why is having 2 diluted champions a stronger draw? (I agree that having more teams at these events is a plus.) Is it simply "it doesn't matter"?

I was with you until the very end. That last sentence doesn't fit with the rest of your reasoning.:confused:

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I think we've heard from the FRC community, regardless of team membership or type, that they oppose championsplit. By all of the measures posted on that thread, the opponents outnumber supporters 2 to 1. That's a landslide. Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory was only 58.8% to 40.6%.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I read this quote by Don Bossi at the townhall meeting in the survey thread:

The story for FIRST® LEGO® League, FIRST® Tech Challenge, Junior FIRST® LEGO® League is much worse. FIRST Tech Challenge has the capacity for about 3 percent of their teams at Championship. FIRST LEGO League, it kills me when I talk to a FIRST LEGO League partner for a country and I say, oh we can’t even send a team this year, we don’t have a slot this year."

And I thought about how the Chairman's criteria was changed to emphasize creation of new FLL teams. And I felt a letdown. I realized that what happened with FRC in championsplit is a complete afterthought for FIRST HQ.

I will now be speculating, but I think it's internally consistent.

FIRST HQ is primarily focused on expanding FLL. Given that LEGO is a major supporter of FIRST and the Mindstorm package is credited as an important factor for the turnaround of LEGO, FIRST HQ may be getting pressure from LEGO to continue to expand that market. FIRST recognizes for younger students just going to a "world" event is sufficient incentive, so having more "world" events is good for expanding FLL.

FIRST HQ's second priority is FTC. It fits into a smaller scale so it can be more cost effective in more middle and high schools. And it faces a strong challenge from VEX. FIRST HQ has to find a way to turn around the FTC ship. Right now it's lost in the championship event.

FRC hasn't caught on fire--it's not a wildly successful marketing tool to promote widespread adoption of robotics programs across the US. (I've talked about how FIRST HQ hasn't adequately pushed this model, but that's a different thought.) So FIRST HQ is trying to figure out how to keep FRC around at these events in sufficient numbers and quality to inspire the FLL and FTC attendees, so that they feel like they are part of a bigger event.

Ultimately, FIRST HQ sees an "AYSO" future which focuses on elementary school participation. Unfortunately AYSO hasn't been particularly successful at changing how the US looks at soccer, and it doesn't seem to have much of an impact on physical activity levels. Increased soccer interest is mostly driven by increased immigration. (The PNW might be an interesting exception worth looking at.)

So I'm afraid this whole discussion about how FRC is affected by championsplit is doomed to fall on deaf ears. We're just not their prime constituency anymore. I believe they have made a serious miscalculation, but at the moment, FIRST HQ isn't ready to hear that.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'm interested to see where this is emphasized or stated?
If true, my concern is whether it really matters if creation of new teams for outreach have to be FLL?
There is another competing program we feel more strongly about and we promote that extensively.

One program is in the business of catering to Robotics in elementary schools, the other partners with Lego in bringing Robotics. And it shows.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I can't stop... I'll just tell myself it's a re-statement.

1. I'm making a simple statement about our position. I made no comment to follow said statement saying that it justifies anything but my position. A takeaway could be "something is obviously still working for them maybe I'll try it once". If I followed your lead I'd be mildly sad and very disappointed at best.

2. All I'm saying is that there are other means of achieving the same goals that aren't hindered by the "championsplit", and that they don't require anymore than any team could come up with (be it money, time, or personnel). Also don't forget the tactics and effectiveness of anyone who you don't consider "top".

3. Find a positive somewhere, get some new inspiration tactics if you still think you need them, and move to Atlanta so you can sing this:

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Dang it, don't make me pull out the emphatic Dave Lavery quote that chastises any and everyone who isn't focused on making all STEM-education/inspiration programs just as wildly successful as they all possibly can be.

VRC, FTC, BEST, BotBall, FRC, are not (had better not be) in competition with one another. They are all tiny compared to what is needed.

[SOAPBOX]
When talking to someone about STEM programs, graciously and professionally tell them about all of them, and at the end, once they are fully informed, if you want, explain why one program or another is your personal favorite.

When volunteering to make a program more successful than it already is, do it because all should be successful, not to exclude, harm or "beat" a different program.
[/SOAPBOX]

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Please fine anything in my posts in this thread that allude to you dual championship proposal. You attempted to frame my position as "inconsistent" based on an entirely different thread and a position I never espoused in any thread. This isn't me making my position unclearly, this is you attempting to twist the words of multiple independent parties to suit your agenda.

You have given no proof. You were one of four champions this year, yet you still met with state senators. You weren't even the only champion from your home state. Do you think your state senators would have refused your visit if you won the championship in Houston and someone else won the championship in Detroit?

The only way that this comment could be connected to this thread is if you brought up the media attention FIRST has received historically. Like, say, the years where FRC was broadcast on ESPN. ;)

I have no clue who De La Salle football is, and I'm a football fan.

The younger of those two sports dates back to the 19th century, and it's TV popularity has faded dramatically in recent years. Neither of them has a singular championship, either. There is both the World Series of Poker and the World Poker Tour Championship. MMA has numerous organizations, each with numerous weight classes that are awarded their own championships. Multiple different organizations rank each fighter. So both of these aren't exactly helping your singular championship argument.
But the larger point here is that this isn't about promoting FIRST as a sport, it's about promoting science and technology.

For the umpteenth time, I don't support the split championship. If you actually read and considered other people's opinions you might realize that. Stop trying to drag every discussion off course. This is a thread about the FRC championship in a historical perspective, yet you're half responding to posts and half dragging them towards a different direction. It's reached the point where you're cross posting your own posts from other championship split threads (that have been countered there as well). If you actually stopped your campaigning to focus on what other people actually think, you might reach a breakthrough.

In response to your argument there, two championships doesn't make it any harder to reach a larger audience. If anything, it makes it easier since you have two local markets to reach with a free event. A singular championship doesn't matter to anyone outside of our own community.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

GENTLEMEN.

Please take your nitpicking discussions to PMs. Y'all are starting to just plain attack each other--at least from my perspective, you are. If you can't agree to disagree, you may want to PM each other, come to an agreement of sorts, and then post a joint conclusion. Thank you.




Mods: If this sort of discussion continues, I will be requesting a lock. The thread has wandered far from its intended purpose and become a 3-way back-and-forth.

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?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Except they aren't "the" world champion. One of 4 champions. And in 2017 they'll be one of 8 champions (or 6 if we go back to 3-team alliances). And in terms of 3,000 teams, the difference between 4 and 8 is negligible. Just like when we went from one champion team to one champion alliance (increasing the number of champions 3-fold).

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Except FIRST wants to bring both the two winning alliances together anyways, so this is a probable non-issue

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

At that percentage (25%) this year's FTC championship event would have involved 1120 teams. In 3 years, given the current growth rates, this number could top 2000 teams. I think that the current 128 team bracket is just right, as it keeps the top level competition sharp with only teams that have won regional and super regional events.

In the case of FLL, the 25% number would be closer to 7000 teams this year, and 11000 teams in 3 years. I don't even want to think about 110,000 FLL kids all in the same place!

I'm still having trouble understanding why FRC teams expect to send 20-25% of the entire league to the top level championship event. Please explain it to someone on the outside looking in.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Quite a few FRC teams don't believe in this. It's a stated goal for FIRST HQ, but not of many FRC teams.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

The last N posts in this thread have done little to improve my understanding of the HISTORY of FIRST's championships. Know what I mean....?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Honest question: do high school sports teams that win say, the Mid-Atlantic Championship (or your geographic equivalent) bill themselves as "national quarterfinalists" or however many peer regions there are in the US for that sport? I've never seen anything like that, but I honestly don't know. This seems like a very bizarre debate if there's no precedent.

This is an excellent question, and one many of us have been asking for a long time. What HQ actually says is "we want more kids to feel the passion and power that comes with being a part of FIRST Championship events." (This is from the announcement and is echoed elsewhere.) Unfortunately, they've translated this as "every kid needs to get to CMP no matter how many kids there are", instead of "we should make more tiers of events more inspiring". This is unfortunate not because I'm against the split, but because it's foundationally less scalable than the alternative. It's also weird from a historical perspective, because while every team could theoretically get in every four years if they manage to maintain the 25% number forever, that means 3 poor teams out there are hoping that 254 misses Worlds 3 of every 4 years. I have trouble imagining what Worlds would really be like if HQ actually enforced the prospect of getting in every team every four years.

Does anyone have a way to generate numbers on how close we've gotten to that "goal" for the era in which the rate was around 25%? ...And Blake, I disagree. We're straying some (okay, occasionally a lot), but the general trend is towards comparing historical aspects of champs to the present and future. I don't see this as a particularly big jump from the thread OP or title, but you're welcome to bring up a topic of interest to you that's closer (or the same distance away).

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'll stand by what I wrote. "The last N posts in this thread have done little to improve my understanding of the HISTORY of FIRST's championships."

Maybe the historical perspectives of other readers are being improved/changed. Mine isn't.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Here is a little History:
Looking at this White paper: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/3133

Since 2001, there have been a total of 1608 Elim/Playoff opportunities. There have been 569 unique teams that have participated in playoffs. This is only a little surprising, but it is basically around 10% of all the FRC teams to ever exist.

Of those 241 have only had 1 occurrence. This could be due to a newly formed Powerhouse, or it coould be a 1 and done from 2008. What it does mean is that means that 1367 of 1608 oppotunities have been covered by teams that have had multiple playoffs. This number of teams is (569-241)=328 teams. IE 328 teams cover 1367 of the playoof/Elim opportunities, or about 4 times on average.

The top 100 teams (top 100 according to number of plays in elims) comprise of 775 of 1608 spots. IE, there are 100 FRC teams that basically cover 50% of playoff/elims spots.

As I said before, I would be curious what the similar attendence numbers look like, but as far as being contenders to win worlds, 50% of the spots in contention since 2001 have been covered by about 100 teams*...

Division SF and Finals are even crazier numbers...

*Not saying this number should be larger/smaller/different, just wanting to educate the audience a bit... BTW this is basically your top 3%.
Top 1% (about 31 teams) comprises about 1/5 to 1/3 of each advancing position...

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'm not sure that will work out logistically. Given the events on the national and local academic calendars starting in early May and that many seniors are graduating by late May, I think the ability to bring together the actual winning alliances from the two events within the academic year are very limited if FIRST HQ is planning on holding a separate event. And post school year chances are even worse. FIRST has held its championship on what it has viewed as the last possible weekend of the school year. What will have changed?

FIRST HQ is more likely to offer up a championship event in a high school gym and when the teams can't make it, they'll say "Oh well. Must not have been important enough to those teams."

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

One added point, we're not looking to turn it into sponsorship just for us--we're trying to figure out to turn it into $$$ for California teams, now.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Aaaah. :cool: Agreed.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I think this is an interesting perspective outside of FRC. And it may reflect how FIRST HQ is not only out of touch with the FRC community but also FLL and FTC. I believe that FIRST HQ is top heavy with successful business-to-business CEOs who think that their knowledge translates to retail marketing.

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.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

While getting rid of Championship is an extreme I'm not for, the sentiment of your post is something I agree completely with. Regionals and DCMPs will have more reach then Championships. Lets let those experiences be amazing on their own.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I don't dispute that the sponsors want great exposure. What I said was confusing between what sponsors are doing right now, and what sponsors really want in the long term which is what I intended. An unpopular program doesn't achieve their long term goals.

However, I think that FIRST HQ has told them that participants are perfectly happy to sit through extended repetitive speeches. And by letting Kamen talk for extended periods, it's hard to put discipline on the sponsors unless FIRST makes a case that Kamen is more important/inspirational than the company VPs are. That may not be a step that FIRST HQ is willing to do. The problem is that FIRST HQ should better understand its target audience (which I think most of us seem to have a better feel for receptiveness to ceremony length) and tell its sponsors what they really should accept to increase the effectiveness of their support.

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.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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...

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'll grant that Einstein viewers (inside the Dome) are a physically captive audience, but they are definitely not a mentally captive audience. I wonder if that's a big enough selling point. Probably not.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Here's a video that popped up in my YouTube list with footage from the 1992 to 2011 games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUHs...s_digest-vrecs

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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.

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.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

First saying that a single team on an alliance can't claim to be world champion is like saying Tom Brady can't claim to be Super Bowl champion because he played on the Patriots. Yes, the alliance is the world champion but the teams are members of that singular alliance. Russell Wilson of the Seahawks can't claim to be Super Bowl champion this year.

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."

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

This looks like the perfect opportunity for a Pay Per View event!:cool:

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

This example is incredibly misleading.

FLL and FRC are very different monsters and you have made some totally outrageous comparisons here.

IF FLL was like FRC, you could only go to event where you can only play 3 matches.

"FLL did exactly what we want FRC to do" Is a completely ridiculous notion. The main problem with the FLL qualifying system is that not every region gets a qualifying spot. So you could have a season where it is literally impossible to qualify for the world championships. FRC should/would NEVER stand for that. The only reason it gets put by in FLL is because they presumably use the "They are just kids" and most teams aren't particularly serious.

You equating the specifics of FRC to the specifics of FLL is just silly. The programs are fundamentally different. Being on an FLL team is FAR less forgiving than FRC. How many times has your team had a bad robot day? Or an off chairmans day? Probably multiple times. In FLL there is no "second shot".

And if you look. Despite the fact that the qualification system is more or less broken. Tons of teams push themselves to reach that world class level. 9 year olds learning sophisticated PID. Mechanical linkages. Packaging. Stellar group work. Calibration of sensors. Creating patents for their ideas. Getting real business to make their idea.

FLL's bar is being raised way way way higher and faster than FRC. I see it in State/Provincial level especially. The teams improve every year drastically. And thus it makes other competitive teams try to match it. It's just like FRC, but to the extent that can grabbers were improved this year. That kind of pace and trend setting is common.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

A) Why?
B) According to what authority?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Why? Because it's very demotivating. On what authority. I may be assuming that the teams that would have qualified would like to attend. It sort of sucks to have your end season determined by a lottery system.

If FIRST ever actually did that there would be a real riot.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

And that is why FLL has grown and continues to grow, because it's OK for that to happen to FLL teams?
And that is why FLL has grown and continues to grow, and has so few highly motivated participants?
And that is why FLL has grown and continues to grow, because of the end-of-season depression they all face?

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.

Nothing personal toward you Brennan, your simple post was just the drop that overflowed the rain barrel.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

LOLz

I didn't write that anyone should do something. I didn't substitute my opinions for those of the people actually in charge of the FIRST programs.

Instead, I observed that FLL has grown and continues to grow, even though it "suffers" from the "flaws" Brennan enumerated. That doesn't require any authority (not the sort being discussed here).

On the"why" topic, I *am* asserting that human nature, while it changes as students grow (and as already-mature adults interact with them), is constant enough across STEM programs for my provocative comments to be apt.

I can write a stronger foundation for my claim(s) if anyone wants one; but I really don't think it's necessary - if readers are willing to just step back from the debate, and take a little time doing some what-if, thought experiments that challenge their own assumptions.

Just ask here.

Blake
PS: So many conflicting claims have been made in this thread, I believe that over 50% must be flat wrong. I don't think that is a stretch at all.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Want to share your solution to this logistic nightmare?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I honestly don't buy it. Is average human nature reasonably constant? Sure. But you've now assumed that human nature is the only controlling factor in these motivational conditions. That I don't buy for a minute, and not even pointing out the jump reads as a false equivalency. Maybe FRC and FLL are the same on the the relevant metrics: maybe investment cost doesn't matter and average time commitment is the same or irrelevant, and so on and so forth. Maybe the aforementioned drive for non-qualifiable FLL teams to be "World Class" is not linked to the existence of a single World Festival. I don't know. I have no evidence of any of this either way, and thus (quoting myself) will not "assume that FRC and FLL are comparable". I would honestly be interested in your evidence, or I would advise anyone against jumping to a similar assumption.

I agree with you on the fact that substantively contradictory statements cannot both be simultaneously true.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Big questions. Do I know all the answers? Nope. I'll do my best based on my interpretation. I don't claim it to be right, just my best guess.

Firstly it's important to point out the teams don't actually know if they will qualify or not prior to the start of the season. (at least as far as I know) So are the participants demotivated? Absolutely not. They still grow partially due to the fact that they don't know if they will qualify prior to the event.

Second. Good FLL teams aren't fundamentally good because they want to attend a world event. They are good because they enjoy what they are doing. They don't do FLL for the event. This is pretty obvious because basically nobody gets to go to an international event. The fact that they are using LEGO is the biggest draw here I think.

Third. It's been like this for ages. For sure 2008 this was the case. Probably in previous years too. In general FLL teams have a shorter lifespan than say an FRC team. Parents have kids that get older, teachers retire or move schools. It's not uncommon for FLL teams to run for 3-5 years (or shorter) and then close due to lack of members/coach not at the school anymore. Or some teams graduate to FTC or FRC and just mentor an FLL team in the area.

Fourth. FLL's youtube culture is great. Just as strong as FRC showing how well their robots can perform at various tasks. I think this pushes the kids to keep improving.

Fifth. There is (almost) always next year. Normally (always?) after you lose the lottery you get a spot next year.

Sixth. Alternate world class event is an okay consolation prize if you get invited and can afford to go. People still prefer world festival though I think.

Seventh. FLL is more of a showcase of your robot. Repeating the same thing over and over again. There are no playoffs anymore (for the most part) Not a huge thrill or anything.

Eighth. Most FLL teams aren't super elite high achievers.

So.

FLL grows because despite the large negative for a few teams, it's well... only a few teams. The program has an overwhelming amount of positives.

Most participants are motivated.

And lastly, the teams that do have a season ended due to a lost lottery spot, if they care enough normally they are good enough to get into another international invitational. Then they bounce back next year.

No it's good to ask for clarification. I have drifted too far in the "this is the way it is" camp. It's a good reminder.

The fact that society thinks you need to be a certain age to be able to do something? That is hard. FIRST is helping with that to some degree. I suspect it's less heard of since it's a very small, and not particularly vocal minority 9-14 year olds. The "non-serious teams" aren't doing anything wrong. If that is the way they want to run it like that it's fine.

If you mean solving how only some regions get spots? That's simple, add more teams to world championships. 10-20 more isn't terrible. And they already did that this year. So i'm not exactly sure how many regions are counted out now, but I suspect less.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Warning - Long post follows.

I replied to Brennan's original assertion, with a couple of questions. I didn't reply to a case built on evidence, by citing additional evidence that leads to a different conclusion. And, that is still true.

Instead I pointed out that FLL has grown (a historical perspective), continues to grow (a reasonable projection), and is not full of demotivated participants (if I'm wrong, let me know), despite suffering under "handicaps" that some might say would doom a STEM program that includes/uses a competitive component.

However, replying to you, I agreed to build a stronger case (stronger than a naked assertion) that FLL's success is worth considering when wondering how FRC might fare under an FLL-ish hierarchy of competitions.

Below, I'll do that by complementing Brennan's recent post with this one, and I'll risk giving you the "talking stick" by asking you to estimate three percentages in a hypothetical future, and ask you to give an opinion about what those percentages would mean to the entire, top-to-bottom population of FRC students in that future. You will either help me make the case that the sky probably isn't falling (and won't fall), or not.

The opinion I'll ask for is your answer to this question: Overall, would that future's *entire* FRC population, in the aggregate, be healthy, and would the FRC program be likely to have a strong effect on how many fence-sitting or non-STEM students are swayed to pursue STEM careers?

Let's get to it:

The portion of the one Brennan post that started this particular sub-conversation said "The main problem with the FLL qualifying system is that not every region gets a qualifying spot. So you could have a season where it is literally impossible to qualify for the world championships. FRC should/would NEVER stand for that."

Here is a counterargument that relies on imagining what likely futures might hold (Brennan already wrote several strong counterpoints. I'll write something different from the points he already enumerated).

I believe that the original statement, quoted above, conveyed that in a competition structure where maybe 50% (or just about any other reasonable number you care to choose) of regions are guaranteed to send on-the-field winners to additional competition(s), and the remaining 50% (again, you can pick just about any other reasonable number) use a lottery to determine which of their on-the-field winners will be invited to additional competition, the entire program will suffer very serious/significant harm because teams' members will lose motivation.

Well, in the future(s) when this hypothetical competition hierarchy is implemented (because it is believed to be the best compromise available), I think it is reasonable to say:

1) That there will be many teams in each region.
2) That there will be more than one opportunity to compete within each region.
3) That earning a Regional championship will be a significant and praise-worthy accomplishment.
4) The only on-the-field way to earn a spot in post-regional on-the-field play is to win your region (and get an auto-bid, or a chit in the lottery).

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?

2) That the chance that some typically excellent team won't be at the post-regional competition, sucks so much motivation out of them that they decide to more or less permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture?

3) That all STEM programs are so uninspiring that they decide to not participate in any of them, and therefore permanently slack off inspiring students and changing the culture? (OBTW, "permanently" is a strong word, the more proper phrasing would be "until a new mentor/sponsor reinvigorates them.")

And, if you are still playing along, after estimating those three percentages; please also offer an opinion about whether the total top-to-bottom program is strongly effecting the choices of many, many, many on-the-fence and non-STEM students'.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I will assert that as a parent, and as an AYSO assistant coach, a Boy Scout assistant scoutmaster, a Little League and travel squad assistant coach, and as an FRC mentor (and who knows what else) that what motivates kids changes substantially between the ages of 10 and 18. AYSO participation drops precipitously after age 12 (as it does for many other athletic activities). I'll speculate that simply "participating" is not as motivating after that age. There is a very well known intellectual leap that occurs in that age range. Any parent will recognize how young teens often have trouble relating to their younger compatriots. Abstract reasoning, including reaching for goals outside of their immediate concrete experience, becomes much more important.

The FLL program is well designed to address the preteen student population. (I'd be interested in seeing the statistics on participation for the 13-14 age group vs other age groups.) But that doesn't mean that it will carry into the older group for FRC. Aiming for achieving success becomes much more important as a motivator for older teens, as well as greater social acceptance.

That premise has been the basis of my comments (and I've often made allusions to the AYSO program, how it fizzles after age 12, and has not significantly changed the culture around soccer in the U.S.--immigration has had a much bigger effect.)