Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'll answer directly and also do your breakdown. I think the rest of our question here is "if FRC were run like FLL in terms of having such limited access to Worlds". I'm not sure if you're also referring to other "if FRC were like FLL" points.

I believe (for emphasis, this is my belief) that if FRC had FLL's Worlds, the FRC population in aggregate would be healthy. I take healthy to mean that there are N number of students who are better off for having FRC, where N is great enough to offset any identified or latent costs. According to the latest Brandeis study, 69% of the recent FRC alumni surveyed reported "increased interest in science and technology careers" (report). Setting aside the scientific issues I have with this survey, I would expect that number to be significantly higher with the FLL-style system you specify. However, I would expect it to be slightly lower than a system with the same number of teams and competitive chances that instead flowed into a tiered structure which reliably culminated in the World Championship, without a lottery in between. Because the real question is not "will FRC be good when there are 10,680 teams (same number of students as FLL with current respective team sizes). That's going to be a wonderful problem to have. But just because it's a good problem to have doesn't mean that all the solutions to it are equally good.

Separately, I'd like to point out that I don't personally agree with the hardline "FRC should/would NEVER stand for that" position. I think it's a bad idea, but my beef with the FLL comparison really isn't about its Worlds qual structure.

1. I don't like this "they decide to...slack off" verbiage. What you're really asking is "Will the 1 in 2 (or 1 in N) chance that on-the-field excellence won't result in post-regional play mean that teams are going to cause less net inspiration and culture change? With what percent change?" My overall answer is yet, and my percentage change in net effect versus non-lottery is 2%. Roughly, I think that 1 in 50 teams will be less driven under this system. Not because they decide to be, but because the teams that could be on that cusp (I've been one) are very heavily attuned to the issues that advancement brings with it, both good and bad. I know that 1640 would be a very different team without it. I've also witnessed that this sort of level of...whatever we're calling it...is contagious without a region, at least one in Districts. MAR would look different if tier qualifying were cut this dramatically and probabalistically--it's a community within a community at that level, and one we've come to expect certain levels of inspiration from partnership from.

2. I don't think this structure would affect the elites much, though maybe an elite team would like to speak to that. In terms of excellent-but-not-elite, see the cusp teams discussion above.

3. The argument here seems to be that just because FRC doesn't work for a team doesn't mean that another program won't allow them to make the same contributions. I agree with this premise, but believe it's incorrectly applied. The question is whether an FRC-as-FLL move like this would negatively affect more teams than it positively affects (or substitute "students" or "culture" or just "units" for "teams"). The question is thus not whether those transferring teams will have another STEM program through which to inspire and change culture, but whether their net inspiration and culture change is larger or smaller than it would have been if the alternative FRC structure had been in place. For the transferring teams, I estimate that far greater than half would see a net drop in their impact, if only because FRC had some significant advantage that made them want to start with it in the first place. (And there would've been a major startup influx to reach this number of teams at all). However, I predict that the number of transferring teams itself would be quite low, probably under 1%. On the other-other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the overall attrition rate for FRC rose by as much as 5%. Transferring is a serious investment and requires trust in programs that, even if they deserve it, can be hard to garner. Not transferring isn't a reflection on the character of the teams, just on the structure of reality. Very little of this decision making is as conscious as the questions seem to convey.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Hmmm, so you have been around the bush once or twice.

Lemme see: I am a parent. I am a Boy Scout I have been an assistant Scoutmaster. I have been in high school band. I am a member of and have been a officer of a fraternity. I have coached more than one little league baseball team. I have been an FRC and FVC/VRC mentor. I have organized many an FVC/VRC scrimmage. I have supplied successful advice to local and VP-level corporate STEM sponsors. I have contributed strongly to the explosive growth of STEM robotics programs in my home county, and the surrounding region (without needing to foul up the age ranges those programs target...).

Gee, it looks like our resumes are pretty much dead even. You might beat me by a nose in sports, but I think I am ahead by a nose in STEM robotics.

Now, lemme see if you are addressing anything I actually wrote.

You seem to be writing about whether older students might or might not participate in a program, just to participate in it. You seem to be implying that competing to win a single prize/title, or to defeat all opponents present at some gathering is important (more or less across the board) to sustain older students' motivation.

A) Students do fun things. Fun can take many forms. Some of them are competitions, many are not. Think for just a few seconds and I'll bet you can come up with at least three examples of each.

B) In the post you are replying to, I never wrote anything about minimizing competition; but you wrote this, How did we get from me pointing out that FLL has grown and continues to grow, while using a different competition structure than FRC; to you implying that I favor replacing FRC competition with simple FRC "participation"??????

I could go on, but I won't.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Opening paragraph = Close, but off-target, and No

1 & 2) So, if there are 10,000 FRC teams across North America some day, and if FIRST evolves into using the competition format I made up; then 1000 of them slack might off some (but certainly not fold or quit), and 4500 of them might also be a little less excited. I guess that means that 4500 of them are unaffected, and 5500 are doing OK (but are a little less excited).

In what way, shape or form is that horrible, or even bad; if that is the compromise that gets FIRST from today, to a tomorrow of 10,000 teams, the vast majority of which will be doing just fine????

3) You didn't answer the question. I suggested that you speculate about whether organizations that are strongly affected by a future competition structure, will fold, or will simply find a different program to use doing STEM-spiration.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Lots of words written by both of us. ;)

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

In my opinion, almost all of the hand-wringing over the "Championsplit" (cue ominous music) is making mountains out of molehills, as far as the future of FRC is is concerned. YMMV.

The program isn't going to die. The program isn't going to stagnate. The program's growth isn't going to slow significantly.

Very few current participants will care enough to look for alternative programs/activities. Those that do, will find more choices than you can shake a stick at (and I hope they do great things in those alternatives!).

Some people just aren't going to be happy about the change, for any of a number of reasons, but I predict it, and the almost inevitable further splitting in the future, are not going to amount to much more than small bumps in the road.

FRC's challenges are cost per inspired student, and volunteers needed per event; not whether the championship splits.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I agree with most of your opinion, but I disagree about the premise that the Split is thus not a problem. Is the sky falling? No. But does that mean we shouldn't worry about it raining more often? This discussion still deserves to happen. I don't recall anyone saying this was going to kill FIRST (though I wouldn't be altogether surprised if N someones somewhere did), or even really stagnate. But see slower growth than it would have otherwise? Entirely possible. Also entirely unproveable. That doesn't mean people are wrong to be worried (or wrong to be not worried), or to be seeking out better alternatives. Things can be bad and need addressing without being devastating and dangerous.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Still agreeing more than we disagree.

Many, many posts in this thread have described the split in nearly-apocalyptic terms (OK, I'm exaggerating a bit, but also not exaggerating by much).

When I wrote my (provocative?) observations about FLL's history of growth, I was trying to get some readers to un-entrench their viewpoints, just a bit.

Sure let's all continue to discuss (and let's all do less beating of dead horses).

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I told myself I'd stay away from making long posts for a while, but after some of the comments about FLL / younger kids, I couldn't resist responding...
I've worked with kids in many different activities (FLL, Aikido, 4-H, and others), mostly aged 5 to 12, and I wanted to draw some connections I've seen between that and what I've experienced as a student on an FRC team.


In some ways this is similar to my other post on why we care about winning, but it other ways it's not. From what I've seen and experienced, external motivations matter to almost everyone. Once children are old enough to want the company of others, they seek the approval of others and the confirmation that what they're doing is right. Those emotions do not go away, but they do change. Two main things guide that change:
1. Growing up
2. Personality


Growing up: from praise to winning
When they're young, children seek approval from parents and teachers, older siblings and children, and from their friends. For them, "objective" measures include praise from teachers/parents and awards (regardless of who gives it).

As they get older, the emphasis on peer acceptance and other outside measures, grows larger. Perhaps it is connected to when children start to seek opinions other than their parents'. Perhaps it is that they start to identify more with other people in general, which leads them to prefer the company of children their age, who are more likely to identify with them. Perhaps it is something else entirely. Either way, it matters more who gives the praise or awards.

That trend continues, at least in teenagers (or at least in me), but it becomes even more fragile. It's a balance of wanting to hear confirmation that you've succeeded, knowing that you shouldn't be caring that much, and looking for ways to justify that. It's a balance of getting praise from some adults, and knowing that same action will cause others to criticize you, and asking whose opinion matters more. It's a balance of so many things that often just won't balance. Sometimes a completely objective measure simplifies everything. That's when winning on a larger scale starts to matter even more. This doesn't mean praise stops mattering--it doesn't; in some ways it matters even more. It just becomes very complex.

I'll stop there because I don't know how adults feel (plus most posters here are adults, so you're likely to be one and thus be able to fill the rest in yourself). But I'm guessing that same trend continues, except it becomes somewhat more logical (maybe?).


Personality: just wanting to win vs asking why others win
I'm now going to switch from using general outside motivations to winning, which is arguably one of the most objective measures (and just easier to use).

It is here that I've seen a split. Some people are just happy to continue winning. Others get to a point where they're no longer just happy to win and start asking why they won--or why they didn't win. They start looking at those who did win, and try to figure out what they did differently.

Most people, and certainly most younger kids, fall into the first group. Most FLL kids in elementary school are happy to just win something or just to see the points they got. Most FRC students are also happy with this. Having two Einstein winning alliances doesn't matter, because for 99.9% of teams they'll never be there, and so it doesn't matter that much to them.

The second characteristic is one of the main characteristics of CD and of many of the alumni who stay on as mentors. The vast majority of students in FRC do not remember or care who won. I can name the teams on every alliance that's won Einstein from 2011-2015. I would be very surprised if anyone else on my team knows the entire winning alliance from last year. The only reason I know those teams is because I've been inspired by watching them. The main reason they don't is because what matters to them pretty much ends in our teams. (Then there are some in between, who care but not enough to remember specific numbers.) Each way works for us. But for them--and for most students/mentors in FRC--the split champs will not change that much. Getting there will. At the same time there's a much smaller group to whom the split champs changes a lot.

This is also heavily influenced by what a team has already achieved. Teams that struggle just to compete are less likely to care about what other teams are doing. Teams that have never made it to champs before are less likely to care if the one they're at is the champs or a champs. At some point it becomes an individual decision though, or I wouldn't be writing this.


Putting it together: what this means for a split champs
FLL's method works for them partly because they're mostly younger kids and making it to worlds isn't as crucial to most of them, and because if they want it, there are other competitions they can go on to (FTC, FRC, etc.)

FRC has had too many teams at champs for too long to transition to that suddenly, if at all. It also cannot get enough teams to a single champs to cater to the first group, or split champs and justify it to the second. Hopefully someday this will transition to super DCMPs / super regionals and we'll have both again.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

The handwriting is on the wall. If FRC continues to grow, no one should be surprised at the consequences.

Blake
PS: HS students who work their buns off for weeks and months to produce a play, would seem to be passionately immersed in something difficult and inspirational, without any thought of winning a trophy, or a competition. In my experience, the most they can hope for is good reviews, plus positive audience feedback. Does that align well with your thoughts on student motivation, or is it an exception?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

1 & 2) If you're premise is that FRC gets to 10,000 and then institutes this play format, a whole lot will have changed in between, most importantly the establishment of state-level competitive championships a la districts. And that the filter will send teams to world champs, much as other high school sports do the same. (There's a list of those sports in one of these threads...:rolleyes: ). However, if you're premise is that FRC can get to 10,000 with the new format, I disagree with that premise. I believe that FRC will stagnate at near current levels and even shrink if instituted now, which is premise of my answer.

3) I was being obtuse in my answer, which is maybe some small % will go to VEX, but sum close approximation of 0% will move on to other STEM programs.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

*shudders*

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I agree wholeheartedly!

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

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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


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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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


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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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


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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

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


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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

You wrote this "No, the existence of so many counter-examples for every example cited on any side of this discussion means that there is more than one pathway that potentially will not lead to failure. This is an entirely different thing that saying there are multiple ways that will lead to success."

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

I *am* saying that I think there are many path to success (and I am pretty sure that I am right).

I will also say that I'm pretty certain that the multi-dimensional mechanisms involved in making FRC a success are weak and chaotic enough to make building a useful model of the sort you are implying, nearly impossible; and to make building one through a CD thread nearly impossible^2. YMMV.

In addition, IMO, this thread has dragged on far enough. I have been part of the problem the last few days. If there is anything new to say, someone say it. I for one am trying to close my sub-topics.

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Fun Fact: There was an era when there was no Super Bowl and multiple professional football champions.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I know. I also know that the superbowl basically a beast unto itself when comes to American cultural phenomena.

I don't think anyone here trying to build a model; we're just trying to debate mechanisms. Those are what make pathways.

Agreed. I hereby commit going cold turkey. I have no idea if this is the correct approach and have never tried it before. To anyone who continues, feel free to mentally envision all my witty retorts. :p

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I continue posting in these threads because I find it interesting to try and understand what motivates us, and then because when I think I might have figured out something, someone finds a hole in my theory, so I reconsider it. I think (hope) after this I'm done though. I think I've said most of this before anyway.

---

FRC is interesting because among the students they try to attract are those who wouldn't otherwise be interested in STEM, but are drawn in because of the sports twist, and those who are already interested in STEM, and are looking for a competition. Not only that, but many students stay as mentors, some of whom are kept in because of the competition.

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

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

I don't know. Maybe it really doesn't matter that much. Maybe I just don't get it. The more I think about it, the more confused I get. All I know is that to me, even when I wasn't there, it mattered.

We didn't make it to champs in 2014, so I followed the matches through webcasts. Following it as 400 teams was narrowed down to 16, then to 8; tracking the blurry robots cross the screen; holding my breath as the scores climbed and climbed; watching as 254, 469, 2848, and 74 broke the Curie Curse and won--there was a magic to it. Something that made me determined that someday I would understand how they did that. So much has happened since then. I've spent hours sorting through match and OPR data, following robot reveals, and watching webcasts. We made it to champs this year, and I watched Einstein in person. But so much began at champs last year, the one year my team wasn't there.

That's why I'm so torn on this. Because I felt the magic even just through webcasts. Because I watched it to see the final matches, but got so much more. I don't know if I would have paid attention if there were two champs, or if it was a final set of matches played after champs--maybe I would have. I've always associated champs with my obsession with FRC, and with one of the main goals of many mentors and top teams. But maybe in two years I'll look back on this and realize it wasn't nearly as important as I thought. Maybe the mentors who stay on do it for completely different reasons. Maybe top teams are motivated for completely different reasons. But until then I'll remember it as one of the moments that have inspired and pushed me more than almost anything else.

---

gblake, to respond to your question about drama:

There are indisputably many, many people who participate in countless activities knowing they will not be winning a trophy. But are they really not winning or competing in their own way? I honestly don't know. I will bring up three very different activities I've been part of:

1. When I help at the kids class at Aikido, the children there definitely do care about their rank. Testing days are not competitions, but they are a way for students to show what they know and to impress their parents and friends. There was a transition a while ago where testing stopped for quite some time, and there was a noticeable difference in how they practiced.

2. I used to do sewing/quilting through 4-H, and at the end of each year, everyone had the option to compete in two different ways. Participants who made clothing could take part in a competition where you basically present what you made to judges and answer questions about it. Everyone can also enter their projects into the county fair for it to be displayed and judged. It wasn't a huge deal for me (I also really disliked presenting), but for some kids, these competitions were a large part of the motivation to finish a difficult project.

3. I geocache on and off (or more accurately, I log my finds on and off), but my dad is really into it. There theoretically shouldn't be a competition--you find a box, sign your name on a piece of paper, and log your find online. But it has definitely become one to some people. From having streaks of finding at least one cache a day to certain caches where you get points for solving puzzles to get the coordinates and are ranked against other members, geocaching pulled it's most obsessed members in with the competition it offered--something it's predecessor, letterboxing, never had.

In all three cases, the competitions meant nothing to anyone outside the small group of participants (especially for the first two). In many ways it's the same with FRC--I don't think there are any teams that are famous with non-FRC participants outside of their school. But they have their own audience, their own competitions, and attract their own types of people. FRC has been attracting people not only interested in STEM, but many who are motivated by the competition (or at least I think). Not only that, but they keep many as mentors because of the competition. They will undoubtedly still be attracting students and mentors.

We may never truly know what the effects really are, what experiences are gained or lost, what motivations are changed, what it means in the long run. I do truly believe that the competition a part of FRC that has defined it for a long time. Maybe leaving that isn't that bad. I just know that without it back in 2014, I would have seen things very differently.

/end of my post in split champs threads, and long posts in general, at least for a long time

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

As a student (i know my profile says Alumni, but 2015 is my last year, I graduate in a month), champs has always been the goal for me. I want to win. That's all. I know that FIRST is about learning and whatnot - but we learn during build season, and during reflection of events. In game 2 or game 3 of the finals at a competition - you aren't learning anything. You're doing your goddamn best to win. Don't tell me you aren't - everyone is.

My team went to champs once, for rookie all star, back in 2009. We haven't qualified since (not even waitlist). Everyone wants it, and we try our best to make it. We've made it to playoffs every year since 2012, and came in second place multiple times. So close, yet far away from qualifying. We know what we've done wrong every year, and we learn from it.

By near doubling the capacity of championships, I feel like qualifying will no longer be a special occurrence. I think a lot of people take that for granted - there are teams that go every year or near every year, and it's just another year of FIRST for them. For others, it's the end goal.

You might say doubling the capacity of Champs makes it so these teams can qualify and reach their goal - but to me, it would feel unearned and given to us. Now, winning a competition to qualify would feel like we did earn it - but there must be new ways to qualify come the split.

I mean, either way, I'd be psyched to go. I'm not denying that. But it would definitely feel like I never earned it 'properly.'

It's like having two valedictorians in your class. The second in the class feels great, no doubt, but he/she knows that it's odd being considered a valedictorian despite not being the top of the class.

Just my 2 cents. (I should note I speak on behalf of myself, not my team...)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

(Siri's response was much better than mine, so I withdraw my comment.)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Yep, I lived through it. The AFL wasn't a real threat to the NFL until about 1964. The leagues started negotiating a merged championship in 1966--not too long after that, and the first Super Bowl was in 1967. (I watched the Ice Bowl on TV.) Professional football VERY quickly figured out that a split championship was a big problem.

Baseball figured it out when it merged the World Series in 1903 when the older National League felt sufficiently threatened by the American League.

Notably, high schools have been moving toward singular national championships in many sports as well, which was discussed in another thread.

Convergence, not divergence, of championships has long been a trend. Most splits occur solely because there's a group that wants to enter the sport in some manner but leaves because of a dispute.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I disagree fundamentally because I've lived through a another fundamental change that the governing body dismissed as inconsequential. In my case it is track & field. The sport made a sudden and swift transformation to professionalism in the late 1970s and early 1980s. (I was involved both as an athlete and a volunteer.) Tennis had made a rather successful transformation in the late 1960s (and I don't know enough about that process to say why) and I think that the IAAF (T&F governing agency) thought that it would end up in the same place with little effort. The IAAF just let the events transform on their own with little (no?) guidance from above. Instead chaos has ruled. Individual athletes only look out for themselves and head to head competition among the very top has disappeared outside of the Olympics and World Championships. A loss in other events is too big of a risk. As a result spectator interest in the sport has plummeted. When Usain Bolt retires (probably after 2016) the sport will lose it's one recognized draw unless some one else spectacular emerges by the Olympics. The sport is on the brink of irrelevancy despite its core role in the Olympics.

I also watched the mismanagement of development of market economies in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Again, entities that could have more directly managed the transition and considered the actual incentives could have helped create a thriving market place. Instead we have Vladimir Putin.

So if I see that an action may be an existential threat to the health of FIRST, which I believe has the potential to be the most transformative change in STEM education, I will act on it. I'm not willing to leave decisions uncontested by a headquarters that I'm not sure is either in touch with the community or demonstrated a good understanding of incentives and motivations. So I'm willing to put a fair amount of energy into trying to influence the community and them (as well as meet with legislators about getting funding for FIRST programs.)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'm not seeing the counterexamples where sports aren't moving toward merged championships. Transformation of the BCS to this year's format is current prime example number 1. Why would FIRST want to run counter to repeated lessons?

As for opaque organizational decisions, that they happen doesn't mean that we should stand still for them. The FIFA bribery indictments released yesterday are again current prime example number 1 of trying to change that.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I believe we are now beating a dead horse, but this thread has some of the best and most varied and educated discussion yet on the topic of two championships. As far as TV, we need the airtime to be recognized as a sport, think about it, all other sports get some, so why shouldn't we, and asking networks to provide airtime for two championships would be harder than for one, but more importantly I think that the student perspective MUST be considered, the students are the target of this program, are they not. As mentioned earlier in this thread, being able to say, "my team competed with the best in the WORLD in St. Louis this past weekend and we did well enough to bring home a trophy" catches people's attention, even doing so much as saying, we qualified to compete with the best in the world goes a long way toward gaining support and encouraging other people to become involved. I want to make a comparison here, FIRST, I think we can agree is somewhat on par with high school baseball as far as recognition, we get some, locally, but not on a large scale. Big tech companies like IBM, Tesla, NASA, and others are like the Major League. The direction they seem to be going with two championships seems like a step towards T-Ball, everyone gets a medal, but no one really knows who most of those kids are and writing that you played T-Ball probably won't get you far ahead of Joe Shmoe on a major league team. FIRST needs to be moving towards more of a minor league feel with televised games and spectators who attend because they want to watch the action, not because their child is there. I want to see how this thing plays out for them, is it, by some phenomenon, a huge success, or will it be a massive failure or somewhere in between. Is there any one good answer to the looming question of how we incorporate more teams while not losing the spirit of FIRST, no, there are many good answers, but the fact that this is a challenge we must face is promising, it means that more teams are getting involved, more teams mean more people, more people means more noise, more noise means more recognition, and more recognition means more inspiration. It is good to be out growing our venues and to be pushed to find new ways to do things. As EricH said, there is more than 6 weeks to go, so if we can put together a robot to compete in this event in six weeks then surely we can devise some kind of a solution to the problem at hand.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'd like to offer my (rambling) historical perspective, as someone who was a student in the early 2000's. As you all know, there used to be no qualifications for championship, you just had to attend a regional to go. Everyone was welcome to compete. our team had only ever won one regional, and usually ranked in the middle of the pack at any given competition. I remember running (walking, actually) to small parts to get spare gears for the winch my teammate and I built our rookie year. I remember winning and losing. I remember seeing a few of the top teams' robots. I also remember playing frisbee and hacky sack, and water balloon ambushing our mentors at the hotel, among other things. I remember all the fun things we did together as friends and teammates vividly.

I had just graduated when FIRST switched to qualifying/using a lottery for champs. I remember feeling a little disappointed at the time because I knew not every student on my old team would get to experience FIRST the same way I did, and even if they did go to championship, they wouldn't get to see all the teams in FIRST. But I also understood why the change had to be made. And, I understood that the best parts of FIRST don't happen at the competition.

There's no question that going to regionals and Nationals was fun, but the truly impactful part of FIRST happened for me in the off-season, when my mentors offered me a summer job doing CAD for their business. I had a "REAL JOB," I thought. I worked in AN OFFICE! I had to be A PROFESSIONAL! I learned more about real life and what's expected of a worker than I could ever begin to imagine. And I had not only FIRST, but a professional job to put on my college resume and scholarship applications. I can't begin to see where I'd be today if I hadn't met my mentors in FIRST. (I also competed in BEST, which was great. It was tons of fun building robots in our friend's garage, but there were no mentors involved in that program.)

When I volunteer at regionals now, I see kids just the same way I was when I was in their shoes, and it makes me smile. They still joke around, they still cheer, and struggle, and dance, and have a good time. I still hear amazing stories from proud mentors about how their students are the best. How much of that will change with duel Championships? Who am I to say? But as long as the fundamentals are intact that gave me the access to opportunity that I had, then I think things will be fine.... for whatever that's worth.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I offer an example simply for the archive of this thread of how having a singular championship appears to have motivated students beyond what we might expect if multiple "championships" were the case. This article in the Atlantic Wire discusses how the frenzy around the Spelling Bee has grown, and students are now spelling words that I have no clue about what they mean. Without the motivation of a final single championship I seriously doubt that any students would dig so deep into the subject. They are pushed to excel by the competitiveness with other students.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'll break my silence. I don't think that inspiring near-ludicrous spelling-bee sorts of "excelling" is necessary for doing well at accomplishing FIRST's mission. Coherent arguments can be made for saying that it helps. Coherent arguments can be made that it hinders. I personally think that sort of extremism should be noticed, but not be held up as the model to emulate.

YMMV

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

It's not a model necessarily, but it does illustrate the importance of motivational forces, and that concerns from changing those forces may have significant consequences. In other words, saying "things are unlikely to change" are really unlikely to be true.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

One more for the archives: An article from the Atlantic Wire discussing how competitive high school athletes excel in the job market.

I've observed that FRC provides much of the same competitive team experience as athletics, and that the students on FRC teams are probably not likely candidates for varsity athletic teams. (Sorry, that may be a harsh judgement on my part, be as it may.) So FRC provides a competitive team experience that many (most?) of these students would never have otherwise. This study shows that these students may be gaining an experience outside of STEM, and directly related to the competitive team aspect, that benefits them in their career.

Note this last important passage: " This earnings advantage doesn’t appear to exist for any other extracurricular activity."

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I haven't chimed in on the champion-split discussion for a while but wanted to chime in on the aspect of FIRST one day being a highly celebrated sport or at the very least competition. Now there are numerous reasons why people are opposed to the split but I don't think the idea that we want FIRST to become as big as basketball or football is a good supporting reason. For one, when it comes down to the final match of an event, I like to look up and see just who is watching. What I see is 99% of the audience being FIRST teams or people affiliated with a FIRST team. Basically what I'm trying to say is that we aren't really bringing in new spectators no matter how great a match is going to be or how good the robots are. If we want it to become a true spectator sport, then FIRST games would have to change dramatically and probably would have to be bigger with fast paced set rules that are easy to follow. Aerial Assault did a good job at that but between 100+ Qual matches and hours of 2 minute long elimination matches, pretty much no one outside of FIRST is going to watch. I think E-Sports(Electronic Sports) is doing a good job of how to make a new sport successful.

The biggest problem I believe with FIRST being a spectator sport is too quick of matches, too many teams to follow, too many matches to keep track of and the rules change every year. Also most of the most popular sports are ONLY played by the highest level. Most people who watch basketball for example either play or used to play basketball. For FIRST though, there really isn't a pro league as everyone who watches FIRST, typically competes in it. There just simply isn't any higher level of a more condensed amount of teams to follow. I guess famous competitions like Darpa could count but those aren't really intended to be spectator event.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I think in both of these cases there's factors other than competitiveness that play a role.

For the spelling bee, do you think that an over $35,000 grand prize might motivate some students and parents? Do you think it's popularity and media coverage might be influenced by the fact that it's owned and operated by a broadcast company?

The athletics article sights multiple reasons why athletes may enjoy higher average wages than non athletes, including cultural bias, socioeconomic privilege (for lack of a better term), the teaching cooperative skills, and this from the article:
"Also, “popular” kids might be more likely to play sports, and popularity is really just a proxy for networking prowess—something that the business world prizes."

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'm not sure how offering a cash prize diminishes my point. In fact, it seems to indicate that concentrating the top prize in some way e.g., offering a unified rather than split championship is likely to more greatly motivate teams, similar to offering a bigger cash prize. The cash prize is all about competitiveness and what's the reward at the end. (I wasn't commenting on its popularity, but the list of FIRST sponsors include companies that overwhelm Scripps in total media access.)

On the athletics article, yes it discusses how correlation may not be causality. I may even contact the study authors to see if they can track FRC participants to separate out physical activity from social/organizational effects. Regardless, neither can we dismiss the connections that I conjecture here. All requires more analysis. That's part of the scientific hypothesis testing process.

As for the "popular kid" notion, you should see the cross country team (which I was on)--it's thin, fast robotics team members! We were far from the "popular" kids, yet I suspect that the success levels are virtually identical (except for those conferred by greater height--we're also short.) :yikes: Other athletic teams often have similar characteristics.

And BTW, "teaching cooperative skills" is exactly what FRC is about.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

If I may, do you think spelling bee participants would be less motivated if there were two $35,000 prizes, as opposed to one? Not equal prizes for 1st and second place, but regionally separated, equally valued 1st place prizes?

So if I hold that the athletics study is a sign of cultural bias, that just as valid as your competitiveness statement, yes?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Let's (mis?)apply the result of this study to guide how we produce successful STEM-celebrating adults

Nuff said?

CD threads aren't the place where the soft (aka tremendously complex) science of the social sciences is suddenly going to snap into focus, and show us where to find the yellow brick road.

There are plenty of studies available to bolster just about any opinion one of us has.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Splitting world champs is like creating two $17,500 prizes, or more likely, two $7500 prizes. FIRST cannot offer two "world championships" simultaneously. Winning Championsplits is worth less than winning Champs. And yes they would then be less motivated.

Yes, that study posed very interesting questions which may be more valid than my hypothesis, but I am speaking from a vary long history--over 4 decades--in competitive sports. I contacted the author and proposed including FIRST to tease out some of those effects. Competitive experience may turn out to not be an effect. But your earlier retort appeared to immediately dismiss my supposition without any support for the rejection, so I responded.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'm not sure how teaching children to lie (or be jerks) is relevant to the mission of FIRST. However, I (and many others) have stated how the parallel of competition between sports and FRC is an important aspect of the program. These items are consistent with this proposition.

It is my profession to apply the "soft" science of economics to guide the development of public policy over the last 3 decades. (Most recently our firm assessed the economic impact of the drought regulations for the State of California.) I work at incorporating the tremendously complex social sciences into this work to help focus on the path going forward. And I put forward these social science studies to provide guidance and to limit the scope of speculation on what might happen as the program is redesigned.

I'm interested in seeing studies that run counter to those that I've submitted here. I haven't seen them. It would lead to a better informed discussion. If CD isn't the forum for this discussion, I'd be interested in hearing where the other forum is since FIRST HQ hasn't provided a real forum for engaging on this issue yet.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

To badly misquote Mark Twain:

There are lies, d***ed lies, studies, and statistics.


Not to disparage the "soft sciences", but it can be very easy to ask the same questions to the same group of people and get the opposite result, just with some phrasing changes. And statistics can be juggled to get just about any result you want--all you have to do is be selective about the data you present.

Meanwhile, I think we've got some offseasons to play, a 2016 season to prepare for, and a distant-future championship split/unsplit maneuver to try to effect AND affect, with or without the data...

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Since we seem to have made it into new territory, I'll answer this: knowing several of these folks (no one that makes it all the way up, but their families are very into it), I'd say no. So much of the inspiration behind this effort is the prestige--particularly because it's so parent-driven. They're aiming for "THE NATIONAL Champion". Anything less just won't have that punch; this is exacerbated because it's already National. That history is critical.

The prestige (due in large part to the tremendous media and public attention) and sense of accomplishment is just unrivaled in the field, basically in academia at that age at all.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'm sorry if I'm coming off a combative in some way, but my point (and GBlake's) is that the study doesn't come to any kind of conclusion as to WHY athletes are more successful in the workforce. Based on your posts, I was led to believe that would be the case. It's not.

I was around when our teacher sponsor quit over the introduction of alliances in 1999. He felt it made FIRST less competitive, it "made everyone a winner", etc. He chose to only sponsor our BEST team after that. A few of our seniors quit as well. We got another teacher sponsor. My old team is still alive and kicking. To be blunt, I feel I've seen the movie before. That's my perspective on this. (NOTE: not accusing anyone of quitting, etc.)

As long as we're citing materials for others to reference, I feel Dean's speech at the Dallas Regional sums up my own feelings on what are the important factors in FIRST.

Again, Not trying to argue, I'm just offering my perspective.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

And that's a valid perspective--you've been through a previous change that seemed to be existentially threatening and FRC in fact came through even stronger than before. I have to say that the inclusion of alliances was a brilliant innovation, and I'd like to see a human-based game designed with the same feature. I'm just not as sanguine this time, and the universal outcry from so many of the teams that drive FRC concerns me that it's different this time.

Interestingly Dean's speech shows that he can get it wrong, too. He twice expresses the notion that the GDC was trying to push teamwork even further this year, and he then references the inclusion of coopertition as at least one means of doing this. Unfortunately, this year's game had less teamwork than any game in quite a while. Along with coopertition points being meaningless in the elimination rounds (at least in 2012 bridge balancing still had a role), having a less able robot on the field was actually a hazard. We played too many matches where we were able to outscore the opposing alliance by ourselves, and our alliances were able to get to 3 regional finals playing with only 2 robots on the field. This is in contrast to the 2014 game where we could make any robot a key player on the field. (Probably our proudest accomplishment.) And we could see on Kickoff Day that this was going to be a problem.

It's my concern that if FIRST HQ isn't able to see this significant misstep in the game, then I don't have confidence in whether they've properly considered all of the angles in making a bigger program design change.

And we're both in the position that we can't see the future, and we both have past experiences that guide how we view the future. It's good to know that the 1999 change was viewed so hostilely. Which brings us back full circle to the start of this particular thread by EricH, which was to get this range of perspectives, which is good.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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


* Which, by the way, if you haven't heard, I highly recommend: http://www.cmu.edu/randyslecture/

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

A couple of people in this thread have mentioned how, since the championsplit doesn't affect your "average team" all that much, it's not a big deal, that only the top 1-10% will be affected, and therefore isn't as big of a deal as some people are making it out to be.
And I'll agree somewhat, that FRC won't die because of the championsplit. But I do think the program will take a major hit.

This isn't the only competition to have a discussion about the difference between the "hard-core audience" and the "casual audience".
The competitive Super Smash Bros scene has been having this discussion for years. What I've learned from both SSB and FRC is that no program can survive without it's "hardcore" audience.

Sure, casual, less competitive individuals and teams make up the majority of competitors, but who are the ones that makes you go "Wow, I wanna do that!"

In Smash Bros, the hardcore group is your early adopters. They convince their friends to get the games, post videos of their sick plays on YouTube, and people watch those and go "Wow, that game is so cool, I wanna play that!".

In FRC, the "hardcore" group is your perennial Einstein contenders. They start teams in their areas and post reveal videos and highlight videos on YouTube that both FIRST and non-FIRST people watch and go "Wow, engineering is so cool, I wanna do that!"

That's why people hate on Super Smash Brothers Brawl in the competitive Smash scene, because it was made to be slower and more accessible to the casual player, and it nearly killed competitive Melee.

That's why people hate the championsplit. It weakens the competition so that its more accessible to the average team, and I hope it doesn't nearly kill FRC.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

If there is one thought I wish I could banish completely from people's heads, it is that one.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Which posts are you referring to?

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Oh? & LOLz!

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

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

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

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I don't think so.

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

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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