Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Summary of known HS activity championships

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resi...nt=file%2cxlsx

If someone knows how to create tables in posts, I'll put the data in this post.

Please PM me if you are aware of other activities that have national championships.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Michigan and Minnesota have almost exactly the same number of FRC teams per capita. Both have 3.5 teams per 100,000 people. It doesn't really mean anything to go to any higher precision than this, so I'm willing to call it a draw.

sources: census.gov, usfirst.org

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I meant no disrespect to MN. In reretrospect I should have referenced them. Like all humans, I am prone to believe that the world began turning the day I drew my first breadth. I'm from MI so I spoke from that experience.

But of course you are right. The MN story is one that more people should know about and emulate to the extent they can.

To MN, long may she be a hive of FRC growth and activity.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I really enjoy working with FRC Volunteers from Minnesota.

However, the term "hive of FRC growth and activity" brought to mind another memorable instance of the word "hive".

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

And I didn't mean any disrespect to CA and MI or posters about those states. I was referencing the 'more teams per capita' because I had heard that claim numerous times in MN FRC circles. Maybe it was more so the case several years ago.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

What's important is how our programs impact the students.

Crowning a single champion is not cosmically significant.

Is anyone expecting the students to indifferently, nihilistically mope around because they can't attain sole champion status?

What is the true prize?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

There's a bigger cascade of motivations and inspirations that come from whether there is a single championship or a dispersal of championships. The discussions in this thread are about the relative importance of that cascade of influences. It's really never as simple as it first appears.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I've updated my spreadsheet with data from PMs from several people.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resi...nt=file%2cxlsx

Based on the data I have collected, the FRC championship is the largest youth activity championship in the US, measured by:

. number of youth attending
. number of teams attending (for team activities)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

You list three winners for FIRST, when alliances have 4 members. And since Chairman's is the most prestigious award, where is that counted? Also, I'm assuming other sports have different levels/categories resulting in multiple winners. IRST at the HS level also has FTC. Shouldn't that be accounted for (You list the row as FIRST, not FRC-- I don't think FTC is a separate row, given how other activities are represented.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Thanks for the feedback.

I added a new line for FTC -- does anyone have an estimate of FTC team and individual participation at Champs?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

There's 128 FTC teams that go to World Championships.

I've traditionally used (and have heard) the average size of FTC teams being 7. So, 896 students.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Full Disclosure: Not sure where I stand but I think I lean towards supporting the split.

My Historical Perspective Conclusion:
I believe FIRST is trying to achieve culture change not just in creating STEM leaders but also with values such as Coopertition and Gracious Professionalism, which I see as a different way of competing than traditional sports. So my conclusion...is that to achieve culture change you need to disrupt the current culture, and provide something radical by current measures. This inherently leads me to be more open to FIRST trying non-traditional methods.


This still doesn't answer whether the split is correct or not, and the answer to that relies around two concepts of "winning" and inspiration.

A Ramble:
In one of the other threads, someone mentioned that inspiration can be achieved with and without "winning". My experience as a mentor is limited, but I think that is a relatively accurate statement. I've been able to keep students interested in FRC by showing them the potential for what they can achieve, and I've been able to keep students interested in FRC by pushing them to strive to "win". This to me ultimately means that it's possible to get and keep students interested in FIRST without the possibility of "winning".

A big question for me is if I'd lose the student that was motivated to "win" or if I would be able to inspire the student via other means. Tough question....and one I can't answer or get an answer without experiencing it for myself. Hopefully, I'll be wiser in a few years :D
End ramble

Anyways, back on topic, there are two issues at the core of this argument. At least from all the posts I've read everyone keeps going around these two ideologies.
1. Is "winning" wanted for inspiration in FIRST? (Ugh..Ramble-ish again: A sub-question that I don't have an answer for, is whether it's ACTUALLY possible to inspire without "winning" and writing this, I think an answer to this sub-question is actually what we all may be arguing about)
2. What is the inspiration for? Is it to make STEM "cool"? Is it to build an amazing robot? Is it to radically change society's values? What is this culture change are we trying to achieve? (not how, but what)

Hmm..I'm an idealist, so my answers as of now are "No (but I'll confirm)" and "Radically change society's values and instill more Coopertition/Gracious Professionalism".

I think these are personal questions that are being forced on the community due to expansion.

Hmm...Geez, I think this is just a bunch of me rambling about my inner thoughts. Well I'd rather my thoughts be put out on CD than elsewhere so...hopefully I did something constructive.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I don't think we have to guess on this one. FIRST has made it clear in my opinion.


http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I don't have much to add to this discussion, partly because this is my first year being involved with FIRST/FRC. My team went to World Championships for the first time ever (off the wait list, we didn't win a regional) and we had fun and many students were inspired.

When I first heard about this news my gut reaction was "but there needs to be a winner if you're going to call it championships!" I, because I am new, assumed that this was always the case.

I only recently discovered a thread on CD talking about the eligibility changes in 2005, and in so doing realized that it wasn't always this way. That, in fact, it wasn't always about having a winner at all. I found that thread to be a fascinating discussion especially given the climate now.

It seems to me that the new generation of FIRSTers, myself included, puts a high emphasis on competing, winning, and declaring a winner, and assumed it was simply always so. That the Championships belongs to the winners. When, in fact, it wasn't, and the exact opposite was once true.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I was getting at trying to really understand what that means. The mission itself includes 5 different things (STEM skills, innovation, self-confidence, communication, leadership), so do these all get equal weight? In addition, what about the values that are promoted all the time, how much do those play in?

Basically, would it be good enough if as many students want to be like Elon Musk as they would Lebron James? Would it be good enough if all students became competent e-mail writers? Would it be good enough if all students learned to cooperite?

Maybe I'm trying to question something that's unanswerable as a community, and is something that's more personal.