Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

World Championships, not Champions.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

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


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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

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

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

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

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

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

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