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.