ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I’m seeing a lot of discussion about various forms of 2-Championship-splitting, many attempting to get one true World Champion. But there’s another factor to play in. FIRST specifically stated that the reason for the ChampionSplit was to increase the inspiration of Championship by allowing more teams and still being able to fit in. Whether you have to attend Championship to be inspired is a matter for discussing elsewhere.

I think I know somewhat of WHY they made that choice—it’s consistent with FIRST’s goals from the get-go—I just think they made a mistake by overlooking the competitive spirit of the teams. I’ve been around a while, so bear with me. I’m going to take us all way, way, way back to before this whole thing got started…

Most of us have heard the name “Dr. William Murphy” at events. He’s the one who founded the Woodie Flowers Award. But he’s also one of the people directly responsible for FIRST.

Your reading for today comes from Popular Science—the relevant portion is quoted, but the entire article is a good read. Take a very close look at that last line. Remember that. I want to say that I remember hearing that Dean was helping clean out said closet and helped find said Nobel—probably a legend, though.

In 1989, Dean founded a non-profit. To give it its full moniker, the United States Foundation for Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (USFIRST, or as it is far more commonly known, FIRST) was founded for exactly that purpose. This foundation has a vision: And a mission: (Both from http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision)

Sometime around then, Dean met a certain distinguished MIT professor with a ponytail: Dr. Woodie Flowers. Woodie taught one of MIT’s most popular classes, which happened to include an engineering competition (which itself was wildly popular). Dean apparently thought this was a really great idea to accomplish the mission, vision, goal, and name of FIRST.

In 1992, the FIRST Robotics Competition made its debut, in a high school gym in Manchester, NH. 28 teams, playing on a “corny” field, with robots built from, among other things, parts from a dot-matrix printer. These robots were about the size of an FTC or VRC robot; their controls were tethered. But the next year, 26 teams came back (or for the first time, joined in). And the next year there were more. And more. And more. By 1996, there were regionals in a few places; the National competition was held at Epcot in various places. In 1999, alliances were added: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” had taken hold in strategy, knocking off a lot of top robots, and so collusion, which wasn’t preventable, was required! By 2003, Epcot had been outgrown, so the FIRST Championship moved to Houston, then to Atlanta, and is now in St. Louis. Robots have gotten bigger, faster, more powerful—by the time I saw my first FRC robot (1997, in a post-season demo), they were nearly the current size. And FIRST has expanded its offerings: FLL in 2001, FTC starting around 2006 (depending on who you ask), JFLL in 2004.

FIRST has always tried to maximize the teams attending the Championship: in addition to qualifying by winning/RCA/EI/RAS, they’ve used a variety of methods to try to maintain 25% attendance, or once every 4 years. This has included even/odd team numbers in even/odd years and a points-based system (win award, get points, get over X points and go or something like that). Currently, it’s win/RCA/EI/RAS, Legacy/HoF, District rank, or the waitlist based on “longer time means more chances”. (Bonus trivia: It wasn’t until around the time alliances came along that there were ANY restrictions on attendance, besides attending one regional. That’s right, any team in FIRST could attend, just by paying for it. My, how times have changed.)

But there’s been one message that’s been piped through, year after year after year after year (OK, repeat that about another 20 times). “It’s not about the robots.” From the 2003 (or so) Kickoff: "at some point in the next six weeks you are going to start feeling like you are involved in a robot building contest. Then you are in serious trouble" -Dean Kamen (Note: I found this by a spotlight search.) If you’ve watched a Kickoff, or a Championship, Dean always gives homework: the homework is always about either growing FIRST or inspiring more people, or both.

Given some of the responses to the ChampionSplit, which is specifically to increase the Inspiration, I think some folks “are in serious trouble” (y’all know who you are). FIRST’s goal, FIRST’s reason for existence, is Inspiration. Not Competition (the C in FRC—incidentally, this is the only FIRST program that uses “competition” in its name). This move is about maximizing the Inspiration, with just a little easier time finding venues to boot (and maybe some other benefits that may or may not actually materialize).

This was never about Competition. Except as much as Competition contributes to Inspiration.

That being said, because the vehicle of choice is in fact a competition, I do believe that one world championship alliance does need to be crowned, OR the championships need to be specifically designated as “North” and “South” or some other designation that emphasizes their status as completely separate events. But intentionally splitting the championships so that all the competitive teams are at one and everybody else is at the other is probably not going to help maximize the Inspiration factor. My challenge to everybody is this: Find a way to maintain the Inspiration at or above current levels, at both sides of the ChampionSplit, and still get a single World Champion Alliance. Maybe there is no solution at all to this problem. Maybe it’s simple. Maybe it’s complicated. Bring it on, there’s more than 6 weeks to go, so if we can’t solve this I don’t know what we’re doing here.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

FLL first showed up at Disney for the 2001-2 season (as a pilot of the World Festival), but the first game was in the 1998-9 season. And there was a pilot the year before that. World Festival started in full force at Houston in 2003.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Thank you for the history, Eric. It is always nice to learn about the beginnings of the organization that so many of us have dedicated our passion to.

You make a very clear statement about FIRST's main purpose being inspiration, something that I myself and I'm sure most others will agree with. Inspiration and recognition are without a doubt the goals of everyone here. And I will also agree - FIRST is not about the competition. It is about inspiring others to pursue excellence and recognizing the achievements of those who do.

However in order to understand how to best accomplish this mission, we need to understand the best ways to inspire and the proper way of handling recognition. And I believe this is where the disconnect is between the people involved in FIRST. We are all striving for the same goals, however our solutions on how to accomplish these goals are different. A rule I live my life by is that there are no bad people in the world. Everyone wants to do something good. Everyone in FIRST knows the importance of inspiring the future, recognizing others for their outstanding accomplishments, and the irreplaceable positive impact it can have on the world around us. These people dedicate their passion to this program because every single one of us knows it works. We may differ in what we do and how we do it but we are united in why we do it, and our motivations and end goals are the same.

When it comes down to it, every debate in FIRST, be it the championsplit, mentor involvement on teams, or resources and time allocation, is based on what we as individuals see as the best way of accomplishing these goals that we all believe in. In fact many times a lot of us get so caught up in arguing between our methods of accomplishing these goals that we weaken how effectively we can accomplish them just to prove that our way is better.

Some people see the competitive aspect of FIRST as a distraction from the fun of the whole thing. That those who focus on winning detract from the students' experience via mentor involvement and the creation of an unfair playing field. Conversely some believe that the competitive aspect of FIRST is one of the most effective methods of inspiration, and that a competitive team culture will not only push students to pursue excellence, but also be more likely to help them achieve it. I'm not going to say which is right or which is wrong, or if there even is a truly right answer.

I will say this: Step away from the idea of FIRST being a competition or not a competition. Put down the idea of how teams are run and how they should be run. Tell me what you think is the most effective way to inspire excellence in those around you, and the best ways to recognize it for those who have accomplished it, and tell me why. And this is open to everyone who reads this. I want to know what everyone thinks are the best ways of accomplishing our shared missions.

When the FIRST community finds the best ways to do these things, the answer on how we should act as an organization will be clear.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Reserving a spot to make a post until I get home tomorrow and can actually use a computer instead of an iPhone. I've been thinking about the topic of inspiration and competition for a long time now and I need to speak my mind. Even if it's just for my own sanity. :)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I've been stewing on this for a long time (some would say a month!) but between finals and taking on additional team responsibilities in a mini-crisis I haven't been able to adequately put it all on paper so I know exactly why the split is so bizarre and why I don't think it's the right move. There are a lot of ingredients in the stew so I pick out one every now and then to think about.

Some have said that if you chase excellence, you catch greatness. On 422, the general direction the team has been steered into is to chase greatness and catch something we're proud of (seasons like this year are why we aren't ready to take that next step yet). What does this mean to us specifically? Qualifying for championships is something that we think we should do every year. Not making the big show makes for a disappointing season in our book. Our goal is to make it as deep into CMP eliminations as we can make it. If we can just get one round closer to Einstein, that's a success for us.

These are not the only goals for 422, but these goals act as a great cinderblock on the accelerator while we try to wheel this team into hopefully being one of the best teams in FIRST in the next century or so. Pushing for these goals makes students want to work more and learn more, which means they want to build the skills and knowledge base while experiencing the crucible of an FRC season and bringing to light intangibles of leadership qualities, networking, critical thinking, and maybe if we're lucky, some charisma :rolleyes:.

When you split the championship event, you could make an argument that you take have the edge off of these goals we set. We're not in it to win (check our record if you don't believe me) but the pursuit of winning is a very inspiring tool for 422 and hundreds of other FRC teams. The pursuit of that kind of recognition is valuable. Not only can we take accomplishments home to our friends and families, but they can be leveraged for future support and grow the program to inspire more people. In short, the question everyone should ask themselves is "At what point would the successful inspiration opportunity of championships be eliminated by certain changes, both already in motion and proposed?"

FIRST has a mission, a vision, and a history. It has a founder and a legend. It has a board of directors, a staff, volunteers, and sponsors. It has students, parents, mentors, coaches, teachers, and alumni. It has a unique meaning to the millions of people that have ever been involved with it or inspired by it, and we would all do well to recognize this fact.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Appreciate the history, and challenge accepted.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I've heard a lot of people say a lot of stuff about Inspiration.
"More teams at two Championships will inspire more kids!"
"Splitting the playing field will be less inspiring!"
We can argue about this until we're blue in the face (and we have), but I think a lot of people are missing another letter in the FIRST acronym...

Recognition. A huge part of FIRST is that it recognizes excellence, whether it's on-field accomplishments, or designing a cool thing, or coming up with a neat way to program your robot.

Recognition means giving the Top Teams the stage they deserve to compete and show off what they've been up to. That's the Championship (or at least what it's evolved into).

Recognition means cheering when you see your robot included in an Event Recap video (bonus points if your robot was actually doing something).

A big part of Inspiration is Recognition. It's not just discovering that you can do this thing, but it's that other people can see and appreciate what you do. As a student, and as a mentor, the moments I saw my fellow competitors at their most excited was when they got their first medals. It's more than just the robot, and winning; it's the recognition of all the work you've done. If your robot moves, you've probably put in some serious hours to make it move. Who cares if we're not as good as 1114 or 2056 or whoever? We worked our butts off for six weeks to build something and now we have a tangible symbol of our success around our necks. We can bring these medals to school on Monday and show everyone and be just as big a deal as the basketball kids or the football kids.

Recognition is good. Recognition inspires. Recognition builds champions (and not just on the field).

The challenge with Recognition in regards to the Championsplit is that we're basically in the same basket as with Inspiration.
"Two Championships means more teams can be recognized for their accomplishments and dedication."
"Two Championships means that the winners are robbed of the true recognition they deserve."
Oi vey, here we go again. Except I think there's another level of recognition we're missing.

The Recognition of Science and Technology in the general population.

Some people have said that splitting the Championship follows the format other high-school sports follow, like football and basketball. There aren't any High School National Championships, so FIRST doesn't need them either! Except football and basketball aren't really lacking in terms of widespread recognition, are they? FRC is a niche sport (so niche that some people here won't even call it a sport at all!), so let's look at another niche sport that celebrates excellence and intelligence: the Spelling Bee.

I mean, how dramatic is a Spelling Bee? It's a bunch of kids standing up, staring into space, trying to remember how many Ds are in rhombidodecahedron. And yet, the Spelling Bee is so recognized we have Hollywood movies about it. What does FIRST have? A documentary that aired once or twice on PBS and is basically just a Black Eyed Peas concert with some robots tacked on to it? I want a Robert Downey Jr. movie where he builds a robot just to stomp on the teacher who failed him in Grade 10 Science like two decades ago!

In my opinion, the next step FIRST should tackle is continuing to Make FIRST Loud. Making FIRST Loud means making it more attractive to the general public. Why is the National Spelling Bee televised nationally, and Einstein isn't?

Making FIRST Loud means more Recognition... for Everybody! Tell me, is your high school basketball game televised nationally during Prime Time on ESPN? Well, my robot was. That's what I think we should work towards. When ESPN starts airing FIRST alongside the National Spelling Bee (I just googled it - they even air the preliminaries!) and the World Poker Tournament, we can go back to focusing entirely on Inspiration. When TSN starts airing event highlights from the Waterloo Regional, we've done our job.

The question that hasn't been asked (and we should ALL be asking) is:
How does the Championsplit impact the R in FIRST?

In my humble opinion, the Championsplit will make FIRST quieter. Big Media doesn't give any time to us with one event, and now we have to convince them to give us time for two? If you think that's easily doable, then I have a set of Toronto Maple Leafs playoffs tickets to sell you.

Don't think we need Big Media? I think we really do. FIRST is about changing the culture, and obviously we've done amazing things, but really, we have a long way to go. Ask anyone, and they probably at least know of the Spelling Bee, or the World Poker Tournament. But have they heard of FIRST?

Competitive Speed Walking is better well known than FIRST. It is an Olympic sport, but still...

Eric obviously knows his history, and I want to thank him the amazing read. I haven't been around FIRST for as long (2007 Waterloo), but I've noticed some things. I've noticed Dean pushing teams to be recognized in their community and in their school and in their media. I've noticed three words repeated ad nauseum: "Make FIRST Loud." I remember hearing about Will.I.Am and thinking "whoa, people might listen to us now."

In terms of Inspiration, the Championsplit makes sense. Or it doesn't make sense. It's a bit of a wash and the jury is still out. But in terms of Recognition? FIRST is taking a big step back. Actually, I think they're flat out running the other way.

Don't get me wrong - Inspiration is a huge part of FIRST. It is! FIRST has inspired me in so many ways, and I'm not even remotely interested in a career in Engineering, or Science, or Math. But so often, we put Recognition in the corner to give Inspiration the spotlight, when both should get curtain calls.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go watch Jason Bateman swear at some kids and try to win a spelling bee. And if you've managed to read through this whole thing, then you deserve to join me. I'll grab the popcorn.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

What audience needs to provide recognition to science and technology? Is it our peers? Or is it the unwashed masses? Is the recognition of a FIRST team via awards or competition achievements the same as the recognition of science and technology?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

To cite the obvious:Emphasis mine. The audience is the world.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Which is why I am so concerned by the part of Frank's blog responding to the communities initial reaction in which he talks about the goals of FIRST.

This isn't just a disconnect between the teams and FIRST HQ, this is FIRST forgetting one of the key components of their own mission. It was not long ago that "Make It Loud" was one of FIRST's favorite catchphrases, but I haven't heard anything about it in an entire year.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

From the lastest FRC email from FIRST:

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

One of the first times I was inspired by robots was (through the semi inappropriate show) Battlebots. Having that national TV time was huge.

Since inspiration is such a huge factor in FIRST, I would love to see at least the 2 Championships (or 1 for 2016) get some TV time on a major channel, preferably one available on basic cable or antenna TV. If I remember correctly, I read some of the late 90's competitions were shown on ESPN. Getting on the airwaves of basic television could inspire kids in places and in socioeconomic levels that we were never able to reach before. With the availability of at least a computer or two at nearly every school in the nation, having something on TV that is so incredibly cool and inspiring will drive kids to jump on that one computer and do research. Next thing you know, you have a plot similar to the Spare Parts movie that came out this year.

This year in St. Louis was my first year at Championship, as well as my team's first. I wish I was still young enough to be on the team when we made it, but I was incredibly proud seeing them even make it that far, and finishing middle of the pack.

At championship, I had the fortune of doing many things: Volunteering on field repair/reset for Galileo and interacting with those teams every match on Thursday, Exhibiting for an international Engineering fraternity and sorority (Sigma Phi Delta and Alpha Omega Epsilon), and being a mentor for a team that made it that far. When I walked in to the dome on Tuesday during field set-up, I couldn't contain my excitement: We had made it. And over the next two days as teams showed up, It went from real to extremely real. I could see in the eyes of everyone I talked to, no matter which of the 3 things I was doing, that they were extremely excited to be there and inspired by such a huge event.

If inspiration is really what FIRST is about, the split is great. The only difference I think should be changed, is we should have one winning alliance. This would maintain one of the few competition aspects that people complain about losing due to two championships. Maybe that requires FIRST paying for the 8 "Einstein" alliances to gain free travel to the second championship to compete there in an extra large Einstein bracket. Maybe it's just the winning alliance of the first championship comes to the second to face the winner of that championship to crown the ultimate victor. I don't know. But as long as we distinguish championships apart, say "north" and "south" as previously suggested, I would be fine with two winning alliances as long as the inspiration is the main goal.

Since I graduated, I've always loved the quote, "Inspire a Generation." It's the reason I am as active as possible in FIRST even with college. The inspiration I got from FIRST, mentors, coaches, and everything I learned through FIRST are the reasons I landed a NASA internship this summer as a rising college junior at the University of Missouri. We need to keep that going, for the sake of the future generations. Even as a college sophomore, white middle-class male, average GPA, Mechanical Engineering major, not at a highly envied engineering school, about as average and non diverse as you get, I thought I could get an internship because you all made me believe I could. And after 8 months, 35 companies, almost 100 position applications, only 2 interviews, many rejection emails, and a last minute phone call, I get to work for my dream company. And if you all can inspire me, you can inspire anyone else to do the same thing, to push their goals and keep pushing to achieve them.

Pay it forward and keep inspiring, FIRST.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Thank you Eric for starting the more fundamental discussion about the how does FIRST best achieve its goals through the FRC program. The history is very helpful for context. At the heart of this discussion is the question "how important is the competitive structure for FRC to this goal?"

I think some of the conflict over who favors Championsplit depends on which method one believes will spread the FIRST message through the culture: at the grassroots level by increasing individual team size and existing teams adding new teams, or at the higher culture level through various forms of media that inspire creation of new teams and students joining existing teams. Bringing more teams to a large event and increasing the likelihood of competitive success for a team fits with the first belief; creating a more competitive event that might attract more public attention fits with the latter. These two ideas need not conflict, but there are trade offs. I've seen success of both types, but from my professional experience I've seen that the most rapid social changes have been top down simply because adoption can spring from multiple sources simultaneously, not just one or a few.

To start the discussion of my rationale, I'm adding my own understanding of the FIRST origin story. I've seen Kamen say twice (once in "The New Cool" and again in "Slingshot") that he came up with the idea of creating a program based on a sporting metaphor when he was in a science museum store and the kids were much more excited about sports team gear than science gizmos. I think this has been a brilliant idea. The program's success speaks for itself.

To what extent is the fascination with due to be engaged with the sporting activity, i.e., playing, and how much with the success of the team, i.e., being a fan? Of course there is cross over between these two, but I believe the excitement that Kamen witnessed was more of the latter. I played touch football as a kid, but I continue to be a college football fan and attend games time to time. The Super Bowl is the most watched event each year and very few watching have ever played serious football. And fans are most interested in following winning teams, even championship teams. Except for the Cubs, the most notable teams are those that rack up championships. Dallas became "America's Team" because of they continually challenged for and won the Super Bowl. The Yankees from the 1920s to 1950s were the most popular team in US, and the winningest. On this basis I believe the popularity of sports teams is highly correlated with competitive success tied to winning championships.

I believe the goal of FIRST is cultural engineering to bring recognition of STEM
in the same manner as sports (and entertainment) icons. FIRST is trying to reach beyond the "usual suspects" of students to recruit into STEM using this strategy. Much more of the student population is engaged passionately in sports (or even video games). Attracting students to FIRST programs is one important step, but if students joined other STEM programs after watching an FRC competition, that would be an equal success. So to achieve that goal, FIRST must promote FRC in a way that attracts the attention of a broader segment of the population.

In large part promoting FRC requires more than just creating a competition; it also means developing a strong marketing message to promote that competition. A simple "field of dreams" vision of "if we build it they will come" is not realistic. (This reminds me of the attitude toward the economic transformation in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Many said "markets will just happen" but that wasn't the case--creating functional markets requires lots of institutional groundwork.) There a number of things the FIRST still needs to better develop its "retail" product for wider consumption, some of which I've posted in the Einstein experience thread. But I believe delivering a better retail product hinges on a key principle: that the competition arrive at a single identifiable champion in a competition in front of the largest possible audience. Television wants 20,000 people in the stands, not what can fit in a high school gym. And they also want to be able to easily tell a story, including low production costs for following a story--that means competition at a single venue. That is the single best way to generate the buzz needed to spread the message through our culture.

Note where there are multiple championships, e.g., state high school sports, there are classification differences, e.g., larger vs small school divisions. No sport immediately comes to mind where there are true "dual" or "multiple" championships for equally qualified participants. The closest counterexample I can think of is NCAA Division 1A football that had multiple bowl games and the year end champion was voted on in polls. (Bowl games didn't even count in the polls until the 1950s.) But even that effectively came to an end in 1998 with the BCS and was even further unified this year. The only other one might be the boxing/ultimate fighting federations that have rival championships, but even those have their biggest events when they unify these championships.

With the objective of a unified championship, a number of ideas have been proposed as an alternative to the SW/NE geographic championsplit that FIRST has implicitly offered so far.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=137096
These all meet the general objective of 800 teams at two events, but they don't all reduce travel costs, but some do almost as well as FIRST's proposal. Here's a brief summary of what has been proposed:

1) Two-tiered championships, with the first 400 and second 400 teams based on one of the following 3 criteria:
- Using the status quo system with all finalists qualifying plus additional metrics
- Using quasi-district points to rank teams
- Using previous championship or season rankings to determine event eligibility
2) Two tiered championship in which the first and second 100 teams are ranked by district points and assigned to separate events; the other 300 are assigned geographically and qualified in the manner that FIRST is proposing for championsplit. (This probably best meets the travel cost goal.)
3) Ending the first event at the division titles and bring those winners to the second event to play on the Einstein field.
4) World Champs/World Festival in which the former is competitive and the latter open to a wider set of teams.
5) Create two types of qualifying, the first based on on-field competition success ("Recognition") and the second on awards success ("Inspiration").

I think anyone of these ideas will work better to raise the profile of FRC in the general public than a dual championship. Last night our team was recognized by our school board for winning the World Championship. It as an easy concept to explain to them. We hadn't gotten the same recognition for winning our division the last two years even though they were probably equivalent to winning a sports section title. And now we've been invited to meet with the state senator representing our town. I doubt we could leverage that kind of access unless we are World Champs (singular). (And we hope we can benefit all California teams in that meeting.)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Some folks are just sooooo adamant about there being one true path between a starting point at the notions of excellence, inspiration, and recognition; and an ending point of defeating all enemies on the field of competition; that they seem to choose to never seriously entertain that a different approach just might be both successful and appropriate. Or, at the least, an experiment worth completing.

If they are right, they deserve a pat on the back. If they are wrong, history might consign them to the dustbin.

Looking backward (the past is prologue), they seem to be onto something, perhaps even an evolutionary truth.

Looking forward, I hope that viable alternatives do exist, and that evolving cultures will explore and test those alternatives.

Human culture is a complex, multi-faceted interaction between long-term aggregate behaviors and the short lives of individuals, and is so young today that it doesn't really even exist yet on many time scales. For those reasons, I feel that aside from a few statements that are so broad as to be almost meaningless, it is hard to make any if-then claims about culture that aren't complemented by several equally valid contradictions and exceptions.

So, keeping in mind that our current human culture might just be a momentary aberration, and that perspectives that come from our individual experiences are ephemeral and limited; I suggest continuing to de-emphasize habits, in order to find out what happens if STEM organizations like BEST/RECF/FIRST collectively push current culture in the direction Eric emphasizes in his OP.

Maybe we will find out that there actually is more than just one true rut to choose among in our future?

Blake

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I was very against the two championships at first. But I'm more okay with it now. We are always talking about how we'd like to see FIRST in every high school. So looking at just FRC now, there are, say 3,000(?) teams. What happens when we have 10,000 teams or more? FIRST wants 20% of teams to experience w big championship event. Out venue capacity is maxed out, there are no venues that can hold our traditional model anymore. Atlanta's starium being torn down and St Louis' in jeopardy.

I'm sorry but having only 0.5% of teams being able to experience the championship isn't very inspiring to me. I couldn't care less about having "one real champion." I want to change peoples' lives.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

With only 0.5% of teams attending the current Worlds model, you'd need 60 "championsplits". Predicting that we can preserve the championship experience spilt in half is one thing. 60ths is a super regional experience. Nothing wrong with that, but that's an entirely different FRC that's decades away at least. We currently have no idea what it'd mean to FIRST performance metrics to have that level to advance to without also having Worlds to aim for, and even that's only been discussed abstract. It (0.5%) is an unrealistic dichotomy for today's situation that exaggerates the current issue past it's real cost-benefit discussion. Who knows what the "history of the structure of FIRST" post will like by the time we're facing that balancing act (e.g. is 60 necessary or is 58 okay, because those last two venues are really pushing it?)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Go look at any major sport at the highest level. Basketball, baseball, soccer, football. How many people make it to the NBA, MLB, NFL, etc? Now look at how many people have ever played that specific sport. A few hundred make it to these leagues. A few millions have played the sport. Then tell me that sports haven't influenced/changed people's lives.

Live changing will occur regardless of champion split. The question is, which one does more of it.

In life everyone isn't a winner to the same degree. Not everyone can be a CEO of a large company, not everyone can be a rockstar, not everyone can be a pro athlete. All of these "goals" are extremely rare. Imagine if 20% of all your friends were millionaire CEO's. Imagine if 20% of them expected to be millionaire CEO's.

It's a hard question, and one that society as a whole hasn't really had a competitive field where a massive number of individuals/teams are at the very top of success. I still think it's not the best direction for FIRST. We know small numbers of teams/people at the top is inspirational. Do large numbers of people at the top have the same effect? I feel like it doesn't, but I have no examples because everyone else uses the "small percentage format"

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

But isn't that a part of what makes FIRST different? We sell ourselves as the "only sport where everyone can go pro" (or something like that, not sure if that's exact). Shouldn't that be an aspect of how we're different from major sports, and one that we celebrate?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

It is. I was addressing the fact that saying that a program small numbers of "pros" isn't inspiring is false. I'm not sure which model is better in a large scale organisation. We will have to see.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

First my historical Bonafides. I was baking in the Florida sun, doing the Macarena when it was "the new thing" in the spring of 1996 at the last Nationals (as it was called then) that was hosted actually inside the the gates of EPCOT (on the World Showcase Theater if you must know). I saw Dr. Murphy hand the first Woodie Flowers award trophy to Woodie at the closing ceremonies of that tournament. I was a co-founder of Team 47 and I actually coded (in Perl) some of the early versions of these very fori (still to be seen on the WaybackMachine.org).

I've been doing FIRST a long time and I believe that FIRST has lost its way (or at least is in the process of losing it).

I used to cheer inside when I heard Dean & Co. describe FIRST as "The Olympics of Smarts." (news flash, there are no Coop Points awarded during the Olympics, I'm just sayin'). Yes, Dean talked about FIRST being about much more than competing robots BUT it was ABOUT COMPETING ROBOTS! The Ends was changing the culture but it was understood that the Means was a robot competition.

For good or ill, The Culture we live in is a TV Culture. Back then, FIRST talked often about getting on TV, and not just tangentially, it was front and center. Getting on TV was the "Make it loud" campaign of the day. FIRST paid to produce an ESPN show every year back then, hoping that the following year's FIRST show would be funded by a real TV producer motivated by profit rather than altruism. Beyond the ESPN show, there were continual rumors and hints that this or that TV Superstar was talking about doing this or that movie. It was almost a done deal, they just had a few details to work out, but an announcement about some PrimeTime TV slot with FIRST playing a major role would be coming soon.

Getting on TV was so central that around this time, Dean often discussed the possibility of establishing a FIRST Professional Level. This didn't seem as crazy as you might think. Back then, Robowars, Battlebots, Junkyard Wars and others had TV slots. Why not FIRST Pro?

I believed Dean and the rest of the folks at FIRST when they said that Changing the Culture on the scale that FIRST had it mind required getting on TV.

Over the years, FIRST has backed away from this goal. The formation of Multiple World Championships seems to me to be just the latest in a series of steps FIRST has taken to deny their very heritage. While they seem to have reversed themselves of late, for a time, Dean could often be heard saying that FIRST wasn't even about robots.

This is a huge mistake. Robots Competing is the Goose that Lays the Golden Eggs. Kill competition and you kill FIRST. There are a LOT of things that FIRST has done that are amazing. Almost none of them would have been possible without Robots Competing. Period. End of Story.

Is FIRST still awesome? Yes. After work and sleep, I spend more time volunteering for FIRST than any other activity in my life. I would do that if I didn't think FIRST was still worth doing?

THAT SAID, I can see a day when I stop doing FIRST if they do not right this ship.

I hope Manchester is listening (as Frank often says it is doing) and that they reverse this trend.

Dr. Joe J.

P.S. If FIRST wanted to turn a loss into a win, then they would basically take a page from the District Model's Playbook. Yes, crown a "World Champion" at as many 400 Team "World Championships" as you need to get every team in the world a theoretical chance to make it to "the Worlds" one year in 4. But, define a ranking system that determines a select group from each such tournament to meet at much a smaller venue (~60 teams) to crown the "Solar Champions." If we can't get TV interested in that tournament, then there is no hope for getting FIRST on TV.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Well it seems I can't edit my post for some reason so I'll just make a new reply.

I agree very much with the OP's point of view. However, with all due respect, I find it hard to understand the argument: "It's not about the robots." I believe the robots are a lot more important than many of us realize both in a competitive way and different way.

Let's ask ourselves this,” If it’s not about the robots, what's FIRST about?”
Easy. It's about inspiration.
Next question: What are we trying to inspire?
Another pretty straight forward answer. We're trying to inspire young people (really everybody) to become STEM leaders and show people how much science and technology matter.
One more question. (cmon you guys are smart you can do it)

How do we inspire? By building and competing with robots!
But it's not about the robots. Heh? Why are we trying to inspire people again? Yet the one thing that we might try to convince ourselves isn't important is the example of the same science and technology that we're trying to inspire people with. The robots! This might not be focused around competition, (although I feel that is getting undervalued as well but that will be my second point) but it should be focused on learning about science and technology and how we learn is by building robots. I can only speak for myself, but when I first heard about a robotics team in my area I didn't join because I thought, "Hey, maybe I can work on writing a paper." I wasn't thinking, "I hope they'll have a business plan!" I'm willing to bet that most young people first joined a team for one reason: To build robots. Why they stayed or got inspired by FIRST may be a different reason, but a robotics competition got them in the door giving them a rare opportunity to start on an early path to success in life and realize their dreams. Being on a team, I realize how important Chairman's and a business plan are, but I'm not inspired by them.

I was inspired when I first heard about the concept of a chokehold strategy. I was inspired by seeing so many people put in ridiculous amounts of work to build amazing, beautiful, quality machines. (And I might add that by beauty I don't mean looks) I was inspired when our team won our first district event, and then our second and third. I was inspired when we came back from an 82 point match in the quarterfinals at MAR championships and ended up going all the way to win. I was inspired when I saw 971's arm come out to pick up a tote for the first time. I was and am still inspired by the countless mentors who sacrifice so much to teach these kids. I get inspired when I see teams working together both in the pits and on the field to break limits they never thought they could. I also understand that many people aren't inspired by the same things I am. People get inspired by The Chairman's Award, the business plan, getting sponsors, and many other things. I'm glad people get inspired by these things. They're all extremely important. But the Chairman's Award and the robots aren't as different as they first appear.

They both serve to push the message and ideals of FIRST. They both serve to inspire people about STEM. The Chairman's Award is the highest honor in FIRST. Teams are rewarded for getting out in their communities and not only teaching people about FIRST, but also helping people in general. What I'm trying to get to is this. What would we have if we took the robots and competition out of FIRST? Would we have a glorified woodshop? Would we have a community outreach program? I'm not undermining community outreach. We should be gracious and professional everywhere even outside of FIRST. We should do everything we can to help our fellow man. That's what engineers and all people should do. We should help people everywhere. That brings us back to why we're trying to inspire people: to prove that this stuff matters. Like it or not, the robots are what bring people to FIRST. They're what bring us all together. They're what make us a family .

Now to the competition aspect. Before I even talk about competition in regards to FIRST, let me talk about the most famous form of competition in the world. Sports. Every year, millions and millions of people act crazy over sports (kind of similar to how we do over FRC). Many kids dream of growing up to be pro sports players regardless of the minute chance that they will. Why? Because they are inspired by it. They are inspired by the fierce competition. They are inspired by beating their opponents when no one thought they would. They are inspired by working their butts off, competing, and trying to win. Who wouldn't be? It's human nature to be inspired by these things.
Now bring it back to FRC. Why do we hate competition so much? Why do we say it doesn't matter? We put in so much hard work to sell ourselves short. Competition has become a dirty word, but it's not just about winning. It's about striving to be your best, it's about sportsmanship a.k.a. GP and encouraging your teammates and competitors to pick themselves back up when they lose and to never stop trying to be their best.

This is all just my opinion. I apologize if I'm not even mentioning the championship, but whether we do the right thing or the wrong thing, I don't think the Championship(s) will matter at that point.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Nobody was complaining about 25% of teams going to the championship in years past. Nobody was shouting "EVERYBODY CANT BE WINNERS! THERE ARE TOO MANY TEAMS HERE!!"

You also have to look at the turnaround on sports vs the team turnaround here. The smaller the percentage of teams going, the more "repeat offenders" you're going to have. While I love watching Einstein, it gets old seeing the exact same teams every year. It's still inspiring to a degree, but it's the same exact teams year after year. Do you really want to see a championship where it's the same 5% of teams every year for 5 years in a row? (Warning. Exaggeration but you get my point).

We aren't that far away. Look at the growth curve of FRC, FTC, and FLL. It's been almost an exponential growth for a while now, with FTC growing the most rapidly. Many FTC teams I have heard from hate how so few teams can go to champs. They have a much smaller percentage of teams that make it to worlds. FLL is even smaller than that. Many FLL and FTC teams have no hope of ever going. They're not inspired to do better so that they can go, they're discouraged that it is the same teams every year that go, because the championship has not grown at all with their team growth. The number of teams going to worlds is the same as it was many years ago, and there are thousands more teams. I think this is a pilot for a super-regional model anyway. They just don't want to have everyone jump into it feet first. Whether that is the right approach or not, I'm not really sure. But that's probably what they're trying out, if I had to guess.

And going with a "teams should get the opportunity to go every 4 years" won't really work either, when you're talking about the same number of teams I'm thinking about.

We're really not that far away. Our growth is not really on a steady incline last I checked. It's increasing by more every year. And with the legislation going through congress that RUSH and the Advocacy Conference is focused on, we could see even greater growth.

Regardless of all of that, we are still running out of venue space that can handle these big events. St. Louis is over capacity right now. I imagine Deteoit and Houston will be at capacity too. So we might see championship events that are actually smaller than we are used to in the future. 600 teams at a championship is too many, imo. 8 fields is too many for one event. We all just get lost in the shuffle pretty much. Judging is a nightmare. The way the venue flows is a nightmare.

No, not everybody can be winners. But nobody is really advocating that, are we? That's the very definition of a straw man argument. We're not giving everybody a world championship winners trophy. Just giving more people the experience. But the same percentage of teams the championship experience as we had before.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Not true at all. My FLL team has never made it to the World Festival, but they've been close a few times. St. Louis has been a stated goal for them every year. They've not been less inspired when they didn't have a chance. They didn't try less hard when Ontario wasn't even given a qualifying spot at all for the World Festival. Competitive FLL teams don't compete to win the World Festival, they compete to do the best they can, and it's fun.

Making generalizations to try and prove your point weakens your argument.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

First of all, I meant to say that many teams I'VE personally talked to and heard from. Not just your team. I didn't say al teams. I apologize for that omission. But comparing the behavior of all teams based solely on your team's example is a generalization, isn't it? Plus, it is possible to be inspired by these teams that make it to champs every year, AND be discouraged at the same time.

But you just proved my point anyway. Competitive teams don't compete to win the world championship. They compete to do the best they can, and it's fun. Therefore, how many teams get to go to the championship shouldn't matter in that aspect, should it? Would it water down the competition if suddenly they invited more teams to the world festival? Or have several national events? Oh wait, they do actually have several national "open national championships" in FLL. And it's no less inspiring. In fact, it's MORE inspiring, because more teams can have these "national event" experiences.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

This is not true. There has been a large group of people, not the majority by any stretch but not one or two odd balls out in left field, that have said for years now that the World Championships are in fact, too big. The entire Division Structure of the Worlds came up as a response to many of people saying, "there are just too many teams for one competition." The largeness of the Worlds is awesome. But I do think that it can get too big.

If I had my way, I would ask the question this way: How many teams should attend the World Championships such that it maximizes FIRST's chances of getting the event picked up as a Prime Time show on TV? I think by this standard, even 400 teams is higher than optimum.

Read my rant above, but I still believe that the fastest way for FIRST to make the cultural change that it seeks is to get the World Championships on TV.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Don said in St. Louis they they are looking into holding a small event where the winners of the two championships compete together. Now THAT is an event that could be televised. And then everyone that is complaining about having one world champion can be happy.

But for me, I personally don't really care about that, and neither do our sponsors. Our sponsors care that we attended championship. And if more teams can go back to their sponsors and say that they went to a world-level event, how can that be a bad thing? They won't care that there were 2 world level events. They won't care about how many teams were there.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

If it wasn't currently an issue, or expected to become an issue, would people have a reason to shout about it?

*I'm not trying to rag on the percentage right now. I could certainly come to terms with everything that comes with an expanded Championship, especially if it was under one roof...

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Exactly. But it's an issue now, for some reason. We can't have it all under one roof. There just isn't a venue out there that can do this with the needed hotel capacity.

If the championship was able to be under one roof, and have 25% of teams, most people would be okay with it. But if it's 2 championships, they suddenly have a problem with 25%.

But I'm not in FRC for the hype or for the championship. I just want my kids to be able to experience the championship and have a good time seeing amazing things. And I want as many people as possible to experience that (which btw St. Louis is terrible for, I'm glad we're moving). And if that means we go to 2 championships, okay. I guess my priorities are different than most people on here.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Yes, it could be televised, but then you have additional costs, to teams and to FIRST. You need to find another venue. Students need to take more time off of their jobs or school. Mentors need to use more vacation days. It just doesn't make sense at all. If FIRST decides to cover the entire cost of the special weekend event, that's a HUGE expense for them to cover. I would much rather FIRST spend that money on other things.

Plus, when we get to the point of 60 Championsplit events, how are we going to decide which alliances go to that premier event? Separating Einstein (or whatever the Field of Champions is called) from the Championsplit events is just as unsustainable as the current model.

Except when we get up to 60 Championsplit events, they wouldn't be world-level, because there wouldn't be any international teams. With your projected growth, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Mexico, Israel, Australia would all have their own Championsplit events. Even if you lived right across the border in Windsor, you would still probably go to the Ontario event, not the Detroit one.

There's an undeniable prestige that comes along with attending the Championship, and with each additional Championsplit event, that prestige is decreased. This is a known phenomenon in art, where the more available something is, the less "special" the reproduced or original piece of art is (ask anyone who has seen the actual Mona Lisa, and they'll probably say "it's smaller than I thought it would be." Not "It's amazing," not "it was just like I imagined it." Just disappointment because of oversaturation). The paper is called "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" and it's a great read (PDF here - but fair warning, it's fairly jargon-y)

You really do have to ask yourself the question "why is the Championship a special event?" Because if it's the prestige of the event, the Championsplit wrecks that. If it's the ability to talk to teams from very different places, the Championsplit wrecks that. If it's the need to crown a single champion, the Championsplit wrecks that. What do you want a Championship to be?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

This is kind of an aside, but something I haven't seen mentioned is, where is FIRST getting the idea that every team both wants to go and can go to the Championship every four years? They keep pointing out that making champs bigger means 25% of teams get to go, which means everyone gets to go every four years. But that's ridiculous. I think it's fair to say at least half of the teams at Champs had been there in the past 3 Championships. If 25% just happens to allow everyone who wants to go every four years to go, that's one thing, but that's not how the argument is being presented and they haven't shown us data to support that.

I'm really curious how much demand there is for the Championship. The length of the waitlist is one way to tell, I guess, but being on the waitlist and desiring to go to Champs off of it are two different things. Some use it as a hedge, if they have a good season but don't qualify, then get a waitlist invite, they go, otherwise they don't.

I get FIRST's position here - the championship inspired me as a student, and not really just because I was playing for the championship, but because of the overall experience. I just think they vastly underestimate how much of that experience they'll lose by cutting out half of it from each one. It's not two championships; it's two halves of what was one championship (plus 100 extra teams each, true)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

When did I ever advocate for 60 championsplits? I guess you and I have very differing values on what FIRST is about. If it means more people can experience the championship experience, and change even more lives (and not just the same teams every year), then I'm willing to sacrifice some things. People will still be just as impacted at these two events as at one. The events will still be huge and inspiring. There is nothing sustainable about not growing certain aspects of your program as your program grows. What if we put a cap on the number of teams that can exist? Or better yet, if a team never grows to meet demand because they still want the same numbers they had before? Teams themselves split up all the time for this very reason. If they can't grow one team, they'll have two, so they can meet demand. What if these teams never did this, because they wanted just one? So they deny more and more students every year because they're unable to grow? Bottom line is, to remain sustainable and viable, aspects of the program need to grow along with the organization.

When there were 25% of teams going to one championship event, it wasn't seen (by most) as not prestigious. Now you tell your sponsors 25% of teams make it to the championship events. They'll still see top 25%. 8 alliances on Einstein or 16 alliances on Einstein when you're talking about the thousands of teams in existence won't make any difference to your sponsors. 3 winners vs 6 winners.

"You need to find another venue." Well there aren't any, I'm sorry to break that news to you. And like I said earlier, the smaller the percentage is, the more it will just be the same teams over and over again, and I don't want that either. I want some "wiggle room" for other teams to experience it too. You're going to end up with the same 400 or so powerhouses every year, and that sends another additional message of "unobtainabity" to the students.

Someone made this analogy to me earlier and to really stuck to me. He and I are both really involved in the Boy Scouts, and both Eagle Scouts. Has the value of the Eagle Scout diminished in value at all? No, but there are way more people earning it now than 30 years ago. Why? Because the program grew, and thus the number of Eagles grew. Still a similar percentage of scouts make it to Eagle as 30 or 40 years ago, but thousands more will earn it in 2015 than in 1950. The "prestige" is still there. How different would scouting be if they gave out the same number of Eagle awards now that they did in 1920? Not as many scouts would even try for it because it is virtually unobtainable.

Scouting only has a big national event every 4 years. In the meantime, we do things on a more regional level. There are some really really big inspiring "regional" events out there, too. And there are other events at which we can meet scouts from all over. I think in the future of FIRST, we will see more smaller events like IRI that are open to everyone, and we will get to meet people there. Or maybe every couple years we hold a big "jamboree-style event" just for fun for the "meet people from all over" experience. And the workshops, conferences, training, etc can happen there.

I'm just going to have to agree to disagree here. I can see that none of you are going to budge. I was very upset at the championsplit at first too. But at the end of the day, FIRST is still going to impact and change lives and change culture. And we are going to face these 2 championships anyway, whether you like it or not. I think most will find that it will be okay, because the students on their team are still just as impacted, and they are just as inspired. And THATS what matters for me. Our kids' experience at these events is what is on my mind. And if I can make one more kid smile, one more kid have this life-changing championship experience, I'm going to do that. And this model helps us all bring that to thousands more kids. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but to me, that is all that matters.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

This is it exactly.

As things are now, I can hit up my sponsors because I QUALIFIED for the WORLDS. What kind of a heartless sponsor would say no to that?

If, instead, I went the my sponsors and said, "It's my TURN to go to ONE of a NUMBER of world class events." I am not sure that my sponsors would be as forthcoming to such an appeal.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

It's about the percentage, not the number of events. You say only 25% of teams get to go to one of the two events. Just like in previous years when 25% of teams got to go to one championship. You still say "only 25% of teams made it this year, and we were one of them."

It's still just as marketable as it was before. Saying that we're going to get to 60 world championships is a straw man, and really weakens his argument.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

You've gone fishing, right? Let's take a look at a typical fishing trip from the perspective of a fish. (Trust me, I'm going somewhere with this.)

"Oh, hey, that looks (or smells) tasty. I think I'll take a look and see if it actually is good." *nibble* "Eh, not bad. But I'll pass for now--wait, it's leaving!" (This is the one where the fisherman thinks the nibble is the real bite.)

"Oh, hey, that looks (or smells) tasty. I think I'll take a look and see if it actually is good." *nibble* "YUM!" *bites the whole thing* "Hey, OW, WAIT, STOP, I don't like this! Wait, there's a new world out here I can just barely see OW!" (Doesn't end well for the fish, so I'll stop there.)

"That" is the bait, wrapped around the hook--which is, of course, reeled in. Did I mention that I was going somewhere with this? First, let's see if you can figure out this one: who's saying it, and what is "that"?

"Hey, that looks interesting. I'll take a look and see what's up." *a few months--or years--later* "WOW. That was intense. There's so much to learn and see out in the STEM fields." (or... "Meh, not my cup of tea.")

Give up? Of course, it's a new student joining a robotics team because of the robot! (The other one is a student deciding that he/she isn't interested.)


By this time, if you've made it this far, you're asking "what's his point?" My point is this: It's not about the robots, because the robots are the bait, hook, line and sinker. We're the fishermen trying to catch the students to inspire, and we're using a robot to do it. For the students, yep, it's all about the robot: for those that see the bigger picture (including the students who've been around a while), the robot is just a vehicle. To go back to fishing for a moment, you could also: use a big net (trawling), "tickle" a fish (AKA barehanded grabs), or spear a fish (or other ways).

This is all about the robots because it is NOT all about the robots. For better or worse, FIRST has chosen to use robotics competitions as their primary vehicle of achieving their goals. They've put a lot into those competitions. After the first year, they could have backed off, gone to another idea... but they stayed with it. Now... there's no way out, for them. It has to be about the robots... because otherwise, how are they going to reach kids? It has to not be about the robots... because their purpose is not to find the best robot for X but to inspire and recognize.

It's a vicious cycle, and it's difficult to explain. I hope I've been clear enough, but if I go further I'll be having a circular argument with myself on how it is/is not about the robots because it is not/is about the robots and all that.


Which leads us back towards the original question, which I'll expand slightly:
Is there a way to still crown a single World Champion Alliance, while still maintaining the Inspiration and the Recognition of a single Championship event, in two (or more) ChampionSplit events? As a side item, is it possible to also get 25% or so of FRC teams TO the Championship?


My answer to my own challenge... let's just say I cheat in mine, and look a lot longer than the two years we have to come up with a good one. I don't look at 2017. I'm looking at 2021 and beyond. I'm also looking at all the areas that aren't districts.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Dr. Joe,
I believe ultimately, this is true. As an educator for 21 years. and prior to that as a former student involved in other STEM-related competitions, I used to be involved with other programs and competitions that students were heavily inspired by. I did ISEF for many years and competed in Electric Vehicle racing both during and prior to FIRST and VEX.
If ultimately down the road, FRC became just another "exhibition," I believe it would lose students to other competing STEM programs. So why does that matter?
ISEF and other STEM programs will never be a game changer to changing the culture of how people view STEM with respect to Sports.
FRC can by continuing to do what it has done all these years.

Whether it be 1 or 2 or maybe more championships down the line, keeping that vision of a competition model is essential to maintaining that momentum it has, even when we started back when there were only 359 teams.:)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

+1 Well said.

Even if they didn't ask teams, mentors or volunteers for feedback about 2 champs, you would think they would have tried to poll teams on potential attendance. Filling another 200 slots, regardless of the change in structure may be difficult...

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Numbers taken from your earlier post where you listed off 10,000 teams as the future size for FRC (personally, I don't think it will get that big, because many teams are folding and eventually communities won't be able to support the tens of thousands of dollars most single FRC teams need. But I digress.) and then Siri pointing out you'd need 60 Championsplit events for that number. I'm not entirely sure where Siri got that number (if there are 10,000 FRC teams, and 25% of teams attend Championship events, and each event fits 400 teams, then shouldn't it be 7 Championsplits?) but other people were using that number so I ran with it. Mea culpa.

But let's not look super far into the future - let's picture a world where FRC has grown to the point where we need, let's say, five Championsplits.

I'm guessing you didn't read the Wikipedia page on the paper I posted. I'll relink you: Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Now, its relevancy is up to debate, but the thesis is pretty simple: the more of something there is, the less of an impact there will be. This is why particular sports events are so important (and also why World Jamborees are such special events; sidenote, I have 13 years of Boy Scout experience, from Beavers to Ventures, and while I didn't get my Chief Scout, I like to think I know that program as well). Olympic Gold is so crucial to many athletes because they only get to compete for it every four years. The exclusivity is what makes the event special! Also, if you read on, I'll go into depth as to why these events won't be as huge as we're used to.

I'm basically arguing that the Championship experience will change, period. The general argument is that the Championsplit will either increase inspiration because more teams will experience the event, or will decrease inspiration, because part of the Championship experience is being with all the top and international teams, half of which would be missing at a Championsplit event. It's obvious which sides of the fence each of us are on, but it'd be nice if we try to take the other side into account. Neither of us has enough FIRST experience or have talked to enough FIRSTers to get an accurate idea of what the majority of teams value, so let's not put words into each others' mouths. Instead, let's look at other, more arguable and concrete reasons why the Championsplit model is good or bad.

A Post-Championsplit event where the event winners face off was not in FIRST's original plan, and so it doesn't suit the sustainability of the Championsplit model. As more and more Championsplit events are added, the number of alliances that will want to play at that Winners' Event will increase. Soon, there will be the need for round-robin play before eliminations, if there aren't 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 teams attending. Otherwise, how do you decide who gets bye's? Better yet, how do you decide who faces who? Scheduling becomes longer, and suddenly this event, which FIRST has said that they are looking to pay for in its entirety, becomes more and more expensive.

For example, League of Legends just had their Mid-Season Invitational, where they took the Spring Champions of their six leagues from around the world and played them off of each other. Their six-team tournament lasted four days. There are some obvious differences here (LoL games last longer than FRC matches by quite a bit, and they waited a day between the semis and final matches), but it just goes to show that the time that these events need to be run properly balloons.

I honestly don't understand this point, because I never once (nor did anyone in this thread) say that FRC should stop growing. And, for the record, my idea for a Post-2016 Post-Season Model does account for team growth (and so do many others in that thread which advocate for a single-Championship model).

This is a fair point.

Which is exactly why the Championsplit model as presented by FIRST is unsustainable once we get above four Championsplit events. There are currently only four cities FIRST thinks has the facilities and location to fit a 400 team event: Atlanta, St. Louis, Houston, and Detroit (with the last one including lots of travelling between buildings). We were told at the Town Hall that venues further west "didn't work out." Where does the fifth Championsplit go? If FIRST wants to keep with their 25% number, we will need a fifth Championsplit event when we hit 8000 teams.

Again, my proposed model calls for local, Super-Regional (or "Challenger Championships", as they've been popularly called) events capped at 200 teams, which makes finding local facilities much easier.

Two words: team turnover. The very very top teams are sure to stick around, but they've been sticking around for years. Teams go through noticeable dynasties, rising and falling with a core group of students. Top teams use mentorship and superior training to stay on top, but the majority of teams lose a lot of talent when their top members graduate. For example, the final six teams on Einstein in 2011 were 254, 111, 973, 177, 2016, and 781. Of those six teams, only 254 is still a perennial powerhouse. The other five teams have dropped off, although they are still mid to upper-middle of the pack teams (speaking in regards to on-field success). Go back even farther, and you get a whole other crop of dominating teams.

And there will always be the teams that have breakthrough years and build robots that do much better than the team's history would suggest. 1325, two-time regional finalist and Carson Alliance Captains / Champions, for example.

When you are talking about the true "powerhouse teams" of FIRST, the teams that can be expected to make a huge splash and contend for the Championship Title year after year after year, you get a list of 25 - 50 teams. And that's stretching it. That's a far, far cry from filling a 400 team event. There will always be "wriggle room" for new teams to make it in.

I would argue that this is a false comparison, as the nature of the Chief Scout is one of personal growth, whereas a Championship should be about competition. The nature of the achievement is completely different. Unless you see the Championship event as a badge to earn, as opposed to being modeled off of sports, which was the whole point of FIRST to begin with (see Dr. Joe's fantastic post about how competition has been the backbone of FRC since day one).

Would FIRST run these events? If FIRST doesn't organize these Jamborees, then teams won't go. And if there isn't a competitive incentive, then the top teams won't go, and there goes a huge chunk of your inspiration.

Especially if you consider the cost of attending these events. How many teams are going to dish out $10,000 on registration and travel to attend an event where teams basically get to talk to each other. The cost/benefit issue will keep the majority of FRC teams (who can't even afford a second regional, by the way) out of the Jamboree entirely.

And then there's the size of the Jamboree to consider. Again, having a large event is limited by the facilities available. So we're basically capped at a 600 team event, which means a lower percentage of teams get to experience an international event as FIRST grows. Which is the problem we're having right now.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

This is one those growing pains that FIRST is inevitably going to go through if it is successful in its mission to expand. It's not practical to maintain what is effectively 8-10+ district-championship-sized fields in one location. As FRC continues to grow, it becomes incredibly difficult to coordinate the logistics, not to mention ensuring safety, due to the number of people gathering in one place. There will not be a satisfactory solution if people want to keep everything about World Championship as it currently stands.

The next best solution I can think of is to create some sort of intermediate global regional championship level between district and world. That has its own problems with costs, lengthening the calendar, and requiring even more time from students during a school year. Pretty much anything that allows for growth is going to involve trade-offs. I have a hunch that these ChampionSplits may become that if FIRST finds it desirable to have a single Einstein field.

From a more personal perspective on what World Championships is about, this was the first year our team made it to World Championship since 2010. This means none of our current students have been there. One of the things our team loved most about going to World was the opportunity to meet in person teams from all over the planet. And not just the legendary teams but teams from places like the West Coast, Canada, Mexico, and Israel; teams we'd never, ever get to meet in New England. The students really connected because they all loved FRC and everything that goes into it, but they also got to share a little bit of their respective culture with each other.

Another big highlight were the workshops given by some of the most experienced and talented teams around. They are still talking about Karthik's strategy workshop. OTOH, our students certainly weren't able to meet every team at World. One of the downsides of it being so big.

Was our team excited to play in Hopper and watch Einstein in person? Of course! But the point is that the overall experience of being at World was a lot bigger than that. It wasn't about figuring out which alliance was the best but which teams were the ones to watch this year.

The ChampionSplit won't necessarily mean that the teams in any given ChampionSplit will be any less diverse or legendary (at least I hope not), but it will mean that attending World won't guarantee that you'll have the chance to meet specific people also attending World. But then, with so many attending now, that might already be true. It also might mean that certain teams that we're accustomed to seeing in the Einstein finals may not be together on the same field. But this might also be good since it widens the spotlight a little to other fantastic teams.

I understand the desire to have a single grand champion alliance. I appreciate how that plays into the marketability of FIRST to the general public and to sponsors. I understand how satisfying it is to have that goal as to be on _the_ Einstein winning alliance. But given the continued expansion, there is a necessity to either limit the number of teams to a much smaller percentage than 25% or to split World. For now, it's probably better for FIRST to focus on making World managable and accessible to teams. Once they find a method that works with the current growth, they can focus on something that sells.

Anyway, that's my two cents from a first year mentor's perspective, never having been involved with FIRST before.

P.S. I don't understand the rationale of making it cheaper to travel. That may be true for teams in the center of the US, but there are a whole lot of teams that doesn't cover. It will definitely become more expensive for our team... not that I'm complaining if we make it to World again.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I explain the math in my own post (emphasis mine):
Current model is 600/CMP: 600 teams at CMP / (0.5/100 qual rate) = 120,000 total teams
Future qual model: always 25% of teams (actually, I used 20% for the 60 number): 120,000 teams * .25 qual rate = 30,000 qual'd teams
Future CMP model: 400/CMPs*: 30,000 qual'd teams / 400 teams per CMP = 75 CMPs


*worth wondering how many venues and cities can actually support that.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Speaking frankly, I don't think sponsors have any idea how many teams are in FIRST and what percentage make it to Worlds. I suppose if I asked them, they would give a number in the single digits maybe as high as 10%.

If I framed it to them as 1 in 4 teams make it, I don't suppose they would be all that impressed. I also imagine that they'd feel a little less guilty about not reaching for their wallet as they do now when they imagine an exclusivity aura that a single World Championship Event projects.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I think this is the root of the disagreement. On the one hand, some people want to have a level of qualification that every team can attend once every four years. On the other hand, some people want that level to be the "Championship experience". The problem is that at least one very important group wants both of those things to be true at the same time: FIRST HQ.

I'll discuss this with regard to more "-Splits", though I'm still not sure I want to project to the point where we're "having only 0.5% of teams being able to experience the championship" (-post by Alex2614).* I think the more general question that comes from that post is: how long will having more Splits actually be sustainable for both goals? Right now two Splits is just an attempt (potentially successful) to split the baby between attendance and "Championship experience"--between number of inspired people and level of inspiration. In the long term the problem is still there: is it about what percentile you are in the organization, or about getting to be inspired by "the championship experience"? For ourselves, if we framed our Worlds bid as being 1 in 4, our sponsors would be as underwhelmed as Dr. Joe's. Money comes and kids go not because we're 1 in 4, but because it's an incredible experience and a chance to play and be ranked among the best in the world.

Personally, I keep wondering why the multi-Split vs Worlds experience have to be the same thing: if we've got more Splits in our future, be it 4 or 75, have the top teams qualify for Worlds and the next tier qualify for the Splits/Super Regionals. There's nothing that says Super Regionals and Worlds have to be in series as long as they're separate.


*For the record, my personal argument was that that's too far away to be worth talking about, but you [Alex] bring up that it's no so far away due to the growth curves. I haven't seen these(?) or run the numbers for myself yet, but I will. Do you have curves/data available? I'd like to run some numbers to get a better feel what we're facing.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

FRC is said to have been designed after the sporting model, and that is true. Sports are highly celebrated in our culture, and if you can't beat 'em, join em.
There have been spirited discussions, on this forum and others, about the validity of calling FRC a sport. It looks like the consensus says yes, FRC is a sport.
The breakdown comes from equating FRC with the wrong types of sports.

We instantly think of the Big 4 sports - Basketball, Baseball, Football, Hockey. But these are established, traditional, entrenched. The youngest of these, Basketball, has been around since 1891. That's five times as long as our precious FRC. Not only that, but going back to Dr. Joe's point, these sports are pervasive. They've captured Top Of Mind Awareness by being literally everywhere. Television (and other media) is a big part of this, but a bigger part is the fact that these sports are publicly played/discussed all year long.
Also, the Big 4 do have world championships, but there is a defined number of elite teams, and they're all bankrolled by million- or billionaires working closely with city, county, and state funding. They do the championship because they can.

What if we look at FRC as a sport, but compare it to other models that may more closely resemble the way FRC is set up?

At every FRC event (on- or off-season) I've ever attended or heard of, there is an awards ceremony at its conclusion. I've never seen awards handed out after a regular-season baseball, hockey, basketball or football game.

I have, however, seen this tradition with golf, horse racing, tennis, boxing, auto racing, marathons, swimming. With these sports, each event stands on its own; there are a series of large events that have a lot of prestige throughout the year but are roughly equal in weight. Racing has the Triple Crown; golf and tennis with the Grand Slam.

Yes, I understand that athletes may participate in multiple grand events, and that doesn't necessarily translate to FRC. This is where I, like Richard McCann, am reminded of the CFB Bowl Series.

Oh yeah - that paradigm has become obsolete. But it worked for a while, and only got replaced 140 years after the game was invented. We haven't even hit a quarter century yet.

Another issue is that with all the sports I mentioned above - they're all boutique activities. For eleven months a year, hardly anybody gives a rip about IndyCar. Horse racing? In May, everybody is an expert, but try to start a conversation in November and you'll get blank stares. Boxing relies on events called "The Fight of the Century" - that's literally once every five generations.
These niche sports are all woven into our culture, and for brief annual flashes, they capture the nation's imagination, but for the majority of the year, nobody cares about them.

That's where we are.

Only, as Dr. Joe says, we're not televised.

Once we've enchanted the masses, then a World Champion will be meaningful. But until then, we're just trying to be bigger than kayaking.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Every year our team's primary goal is to be a World Champion. Although we have failed many times to reach our goal, we never stop trying or set a lower goal. When we don't win, we look back and find the root cause of our failure, and try to correct it. At the end of the season, we reflect on what caused us to get eliminated, and how we should have avoided it. The students are always happy because they know they helped move the team closer to the ultimate goal, and that the team will keep trying long after they graduate.

With the championsplit, we only have one more opportunity to win a world championship. Although we probably wouldn't have won any world championships in the next 20 years if there wasn't a championsplit, we are slightly depressed.

FIRST was about a culture change, where STEM competitions are really exciting and popular. Sadly, it didn't really happen. The ESPN broadcasts were the closest we ever got, and over ten years later, we still haven't made too much more progress with television coverage. Have we given up trying to change the culture, and instead decided to try to give lots of kids a fun weekend?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Lets see...

2015 Einstein

2/32 (6.25%) Were repeats
6/32 (18.75%) Were on Einstein in the 4 years prior
21/32 (65.62%) Were first timers.

2014 Einstein

3/16 (18.75%) Were repeats
8/16 (50.00%) Were on Einstein in the 4 years prior
8/16 (50.00%) Were first timers.

2013

0/12 (0.00%) Were repeats
1/12 (8.33%) Were on Einstein in the 4 years prior
9/12 (75.00%) Were first timers.

2012

2/12 (16.67%) Were repeats
4/12 (33.33%) Were on Einstein in the 4 years prior
4/12 (33.33%) Were first timers.

Doesn't look like we see the same teams year after year as you said. One could even say the opposite. :ahh:




Many sports have athletes that repeat over and over again. People watch because of them. And there is always the "underdog" that makes it in and shocks people.

Teams compete for success. For some teams that is winning worlds, for some not. Who are we to tell some other team exactly what their goal should be?

You are missing some info here. World Festival is by far the most coveted event. Biggest show, coolest teams by far. Other national events are inspiring, but they don't try to "hang off of" FLL world festival by saying there are "Two world championships" National event qualification isn't run by FIRST, it's by FLL people around the world making their own separate event. Picture several IRI's, run by community leaders. Very inspiring, but definitely not world championships. These are not comparable.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I think this is a great conversation. Too busy at work to write a long response, but have a couple observations regarding this thread:

1. I suspect that FRC team count will reach equilibrium in the US in the next couple years, primarily because teams exist in nearly every location that can sustain a team. If team count levels out, what does that mean regarding future structure.

2. TV coverage of FRC, as entertainment, would be a sign that we've succeeded in changing our culture, but should not be a goal. We can be effective in changing our culture without that happening. Don't take that as me being opposed to a televised event -- I have started floating a proposal for an uber Champs event.

3. Up in the north country where I'm at, most teams will experience a net positive in inspiration as a result of the Championsplit. Our team and our sister team are already discussing including Champs visits in our event rotation, based on the increased size of the waitlist. We'd be doing it as a substitute for our second regional.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

My understanding, from what I have read and heard (after watching the Town Hall video), is that the reason why venues further west "didn't work out" wasn't because they didn't exist...it was because they were all booked out until 2020. From the town hall transcript:

Also...

There would have been no need to beg/cajole/do anything to secure a location further west if the issue was facility size, rather than availability during late April. And if Salt Lake City was considered big enough....

Colorado Convention Center, Denver: 54,300 m² of exhibition space
Phoenix Convention Center: 54,300 m²
Indiana Convention Center, Indianapolis: 50,000 m2
Salt Palace, Salt Lake City: 47,800 m²
Minneapolis Convention Center: 44,100 m²....(and I'm sure that there are many others in the 40-50,000 m² range)

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

This is an interesting topic where I had thought the same thing also. I guess its a wait and see.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

First, I commend Alex2614 for an excellent set of arguments for Championsplit. I'm not going to try to quote all of his points, but I am going to address a couple of central core premises.

The two premises that I am contending are 1) that FRC can continue to inspire with a more generalized participation concept rather than a competitive excellence model, and 2) that sponsors don't care about competitive scale and success.

On the competitive excellence, I've seen several great posts about the importance of competition in the FRC model. It's been alluded to, but I think the most important unique aspect of FRC is the competitive sports model. If FIRST had chosen a different approach, it would be veering into any number of other school science programs. We don't need more of those. Keeping our eye on what makes FIRST unique is most important. And at the core of that unique mission is competitive excellence. Diluting that competitive excellence too much dilutes our uniqueness. (And I've proposed several solutions that try to limit the dilution.)

I agree with Alex2614 that FIRST needs to expand the availability of Champs to more teams, but others have made the point that teams really turn over much more often than you might be aware. I think there's perhaps two dozen perennial powerhouses, and the other 376 to 576 teams move up and down the ranks and even churn in and out of Champs. Look at our alliance--only one team 118 had even been to Champs before 2011 (other than 1671 making it as a rookie in 2005). I don't see a problem going to 800 teams so long as the two events are well structured. The real issue is "why do the two events need to be co-equals?" If we have two levels of championships, and as Alex2614 asserts that competing for the single championship isn't important to his team, why is it important that the event his team attends have a championship that is equal to the other one? Why can't one of them have a different qualification system that brings together that year's top teams if we have as much turnover as we seem to have? Why not maintain FIRST's focus on competitive excellence which is it's core uniqueness?

And I will tell you from personal experience that making a selective Championship and winning a single World Championship does make a difference to our sponsors. We are in the midst of a whirlwind of press and community outreach efforts that did NOT happen last year or the year before when we won our divisions and played on Einstein. We are going to recognized by the State Senate and a meeting with state senator that wouldn't happen if we had won part of a multiple championship. The public understands "World" champion and sponsors want that cache. You're lying to your sponsors if you claim to be "world" champion after winning a championsplit event. That could badly damage everyone's credibility. I'm pretty sure that our largest sponsor, UCD, would be less interested in funding our competition fees if we weren't chasing a true world championship. They now have prestige that other universities can't dismiss. And we hope it makes other colleges and universities more motivated to catch up by sponsoring other teams. We have an opportunity to transform our success into a bigger statewide impact that "Southwest" champion will never carry.

Yes, only a few teams can expect to win Champs, but trying to attain it inspires many teams. The powerhouses have a credible chance each year, and their efforts inspire other teams. Trying to catch 254 (and we don't think for a moment we're there yet) is our local inspiration. 3824 might be your local inspiration. And in turn, we know that we inspire other regional teams, and given your success as evidenced by making the Hopper finals you do the same. And I know 254 is inspired by their very friendly rivalry with 1114--they traveled to Waterloo last year to compete against the best of the best. We have to keep in mind what motivates the very best teams if we want to keep the chain of inspiration going, which as EricH has pointed out needs recognition.

I'd like to see more of a rationale that having two, or multiple, coequal champs is key to driving inspiration rather than having two, or multiple, tiered championships. What I've seen so far is "FIRST HQ has made a choice to change the status quo dramatically, and we're OK with that because it might work." That's not a very inspiring argument. What is the proactive argument multiple coequal champions is key to inspiration?

Which brings me to rebutting Taylor's point:
The fact is that a single event in each of the listed sports is considered supreme, and the other events reside just below them. Ask any athlete which they would prefer winning. In some cases, the supreme event happens only once every 4 years, which works for career athletes but not high schools students, but the principle is the same:

gold: Masters
horse racing: Kentucky Derby
tennis: Wimbeldon
auto racing (type matters): Indianapolis, Daytona
swimming: Olympics
marathons: (this is my sport) - it's gotten very muddled which is actually hurting the sport. The Olympics has become diluted due to a lack of a monetary purse. So this is good counterexample of how to ruin a positive model through dilution. Note also that marathoners can run only 1 or 2 fast efforts a year, so it's completely different from any of the others.

There are NO coequals to these events. The associated events are series championships that key off that one supreme event.

As for college football, it moved to the BCS format because it was losing ground to other sports with the lack of a single championship. Why not learn their lesson now rather than waiting 140 years?

I think a big part of FIRST's problem here is that it really hasn't grasped the difference in retail and business to business marketing. I posted in the Championship Survey thread about the problems with presentation. If groups of high school students can put on better webcasts, that means that FIRST should bring in real professionals to put together a top line package. When they do that, then ESPN or someone else will get a lot more interested. Right now grainy choppy images aren't a great selling point.

Which brings us to keeping our eye on the prize. Backing away from reengineering our culture is giving up. Trying to reach that goal is even more important to keeping the energy behind FIRST than competitive excellence.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Are there any examples of national championships in High School sports/activities? The only examples I can think of national youth/sports championships are Spelling Bee and Little League.

All of the examples I see being discussed are at the adult level, where people have more control over their time and there are more financial resources available.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

How is it hurting the sport? From what I can tell, the sport has had tremedous growth and appeal:
http://www.runningusa.org/statistics

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

In high school I know of cheerleading (NHSCC), wrestling (NHSCA), and hockey. There's also baseball invitational, and Dick's runs national basketball championship. Soccer has it for multiple age groups, not sure about any others. I don't know how prestigious some of those are within their communities, but they certainly exist.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Hi all, it’s been a while since I posted anything, but this subject peaked my interest. Especially reading some very well thought out posts and historical memories.

I used to be involved on Team 47, Chief Delphi - started in 1997 (that was a magical year for us).

The historical discussion is interesting in that I find as time went by and things changed, so did FIRST.

It started as US FIRST, and I recall the emphasis in a speech stating the United States was in big trouble because it was being projected, that there would be more jobs in Engineering, Science, and Technology that were upcoming candidates. The US was losing the battle to just “keep up”, let alone maintain it’s status or not fall further behind the rest of the world. The clear emphasis in the early years was focused on one country. Later, the focus drastically changed and spread and became worldwide.

That is one example of how and why - FIRST is like most other expanding organizations impacted by all sorts of outside pressures, and influences.
FIRST changed as it grew (scale and quantity of teams and events to manage) and matured (became more philosophical in behavioral expectations of the participants), to best assure that it can position itself to continue trying to achieve it’s mission.

The goal or mission of this organization also seems to have changed over time. In the early years, the mission and goal was less complex and less philosophical - regarding how to eliminate the ugly part of many sports. This being the “in your face”, “win and all cost”, “if you ain’t cheatin - you aren’t trying” behaviors and attitudes demonstrated in many facets of the sporting world in the present and past.

Even with gracious professionalism and good sportsmanship being the focus, there was still room back in the early years of FIRST, for celebrating being #1 seed - regardless of how much or how little anyone cooperated with each other on the game field. Teams were ranked by winning and seeding selection rewarded teams that won.

Imagine FIRST being confined to just the game reveal & kickoff, on the first Saturday in January - followed by a 6 week build time.
Then it ended, with no way to see how successful anyone’s specific design and strategy played out on the playing field.

I believe FIRST leveraged the sport competition model, simply a "means to an ends". It provided the hook that was needed to fulfill the “rest of the story” as Paul Harvey used to say. It provided a way to further get people/teams involved, and to see how successful the 6 week game playing robot design and build process worked out. Stopping without competing would have been a monumental failure (or as some have said nothing more than a science fair experiment).

Robots driven by students from each team competing against each other, in a game revealed 6 short weeks earlier that included rules on what was allowed and not allowed in order to beat the other team(s). The outcome a game winner - as defined by the rules of the game and it ended in a sports based tournament structure used for centuries in almost every competition known to man.

Robot competing against robot -while crowds cheer wildly, sing, and dance just because it is okay and fun to do! That might just get a few people to sit up and take notice. Helping kids learn that there are opportunities after high school and college in fields of study and occupations that use the same skill sets. Yep, that might just work.

But, don’t overlook that the real inspiration isn’t solely based on the outcome of competition. Many students that we participated with, were inspired just by interacting with us and walking through “the process”. Many students were inspired by the fact that they could help build, help program, help think of strategy, help brainstorm ideas, and be part of “the team” or perhaps a member of the drive team that went out to play the game. Much more than a robot was involved, and in many cases it was actually simply a sidenote - because there were far more students not really inspired by a successful robot or a not so successful one, but instead by a very successful team of people that believed the idea of participating in that program was worth every second - and all the blood, sweat, and tears that they put into it.

In the end - We shared a common bond, no matter what role everyone played - we were all part of “the team”.

I’m hoping that as FIRST continues to grow and as multiple championship event sites are considered, that the focus is not on a need to crown a single champion, but instead on a ways to improve the overall experience so that knowing which team is the greatest - doesn’t really matter.

Mike Aubry

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I'm wondering...do you think there would have been any less recognition or interest in your team's success if, after winning a "championsplit" event in April, your team then went on to defeat the winning alliance from the other split event(s) in a subsequent summer competition (the kind of "battle of champions" idea that FIRST has seemed receptive to considering)?

I agree with the idea that sponsors might be more willing to open their corporate wallets when a team qualifies for a world championship, rather than when a team gets a wait-listed invite to a world "festival." But if this is the case, then wouldn't it be preferable to have a system that would give all 800 teams a chance of "chasing a true world championship?" Wouldn't it be better to give all 800 teams a chance to make that stronger sales pitch to their sponsors, rather than just the 400 within a tiered system? As long as there was a way of bringing the best of the best together to battle it out in a post-chamionsplit event, that possibility seems covered.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

You seem confident in this statement. I hope you are right.


This statement, though, is at the heart of the controversy. Just what is it about the season finale event that makes it so extraordinary? Is it the size of the event, or is somehow "world championship" a special phrase that, by itself, creates excitement?

Not many representatives of non-US countries correspond on Chief Delphi. I have to wonder what those people think of this move.


Anyway, I don't really know. I know there are tradeoffs, and it may be that more people going to a season finale event held at a stadium will really work, with or without a "world champion" title.

One final thought. An awful lot of people, including the post I'm replying to, seem to think that "the championship experience" is limited to the people inside the stadium. I really hope the error of that idea sinks in at least to the people in leadership positions.


ETA: And as long as I'm here, what do I, personally find inspiring? (As a fifty year old mentor, in case it matters.) I often tell people that I meet and describe First to, that I was the "brainy" kid in high school, and I did the "brainy" things. Speech. Debate. Chess.

There's nothing wrong with those events. I still play Chess. But, let's be real. BORING!!!! Two years ago, I went to a First event. (Actually, an "off season" event, much smaller, but obviously an offshoot of, First Robotics.) There was loud music. There were kids dancing. There were last minute, buzzer beating shots that put the whole crowd on their feet. This was amazing! I was hooked.

How does that affect championships? I'm not sure. I know, though, that I find myself really wanting to watch how my favorite teams are doing at the world championship, and I'm not sure I would bother at a half-championship. I'm not sure why. Rationally, there's not a lot of difference, but somehow it seems significant. I see an awful lot of comments these championship debates that are variations of, "You ought to think this is important, instead of that." Those comments don't sit well with me. People will respond according to human nature, not according to some idealized version of what we ought to think is important.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

There are 20,000 (ish) high schools in the US. SO, yeah, FIRST FRC will reach an equilibrium in the US at some point but is that point going to be reached in the next couple (or even several) years? I don't think we're anywhere close to that point.

A few years back, when CA and MI were essentially tied for the most FIRST teams in a state at ~150 or so. I thought, well, CA is so much bigger, they have all those sexy SV start ups, they have a diverse high tech economy, their biggest employers are not going bankrupt, they're clearly going to leave MI in the dust. I didn't think MI could really expand much. In short, thought MI wasn't far from its FRC peak.

Years passed, CA now has 300+ teams. But to my surprise, MI has grown even faster still with 400+ teams.

Bottom line: I don't think we really know where FIRST is going to peak. With the right group of motivated people (I'm looking at you FiM), I don't see any reason FIRST FRC can't peak and something close to 20,000.

Dr. Joe J.

P.S. Don't tell me that MI is a special case. Of COURSE it's a special case. Every state, country, continent is a special case.

Just to be clear, yes, MI had some advantages when it comes to supporting FIRST FRC teams but not everything in MI was a bed of roses. FiM was started when many of the states' biggest employers were filing for bankruptcy. There was every reason to lay down and die. But they didn't. They worked their butts off and fought and fought and got knocked down but then got up and fought some more. From my POV, the MI experience should give every region, state, whatever hope that they can make themselves a into special case.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

The recreational participant level has increased, but that has NO tie to the competitive interest in the sport. The two strands have diverged. The participation rate has been growing continuously since the 1970s. On the other hand, obesity has been rising so even marathon participation hasn't created a lasting cultural change.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Add track and field and cross country. The New Balance Indoor (NYC) and Outdoor (Greensboro, NC) are the de facto national champs. (These are muddied a bit by the international definition of "juniors.") The individual cross country championship for decades is Footlocker (San Diego). Nike recently started a team championship (Portland) that even has a work around national high school federation rules.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Two answers to that: First, that we can tell them that we were in front of 20,000 spectators has huge impact every time I say it. That wouldn't be the case in a tail end event. Second, it already costs us over $20,000 to travel to St. Louis, of which half is airfare. And we travel with only the team members that we need to compete. That cost is a key reason why we don't go to IRI right now. Adding a second national event is very expensive.

First, I think it's critical to have a single event to arrive at a single champion if it requires traveling out of state to any event. A district championship model would greatly reduce those costs, so that option might work. As I said, travel costs are a huge barries to multiple events.

So given that a single event is critical, it's not possible to have 800 teams at a single event. I agree with FIRST on that point. So given those two constraints, it's not readily possible to allow 800 teams to compete for the championship on a single year. That's why we've proposed different formulations for a two-tiered championship.

The post championsplit championship undermines the single most attractive aspect for FIRST of publicizing its event to the broader culture--that 20,000 people are screaming in the stands watching Einstein. The media LOVES events with large vocal crowds. Competing in high school gym in front of several hundred spectators just doesn't cut it.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I want to add a bit to David's point. Here I'll interject that I'm a professional economist so I think a lot about the difference between what people "ought to do" and what they "really do." Almost universally, people need incentives (both positive and negative) to do what we as a community want them to do. In some ways, social norms can drive behavior, but those move very slowly and still have uneven effects. I believe that FIRST has used two unusual incentive structures to create an atmosphere of coopertion. The first is the rotating qualification alliances. Other teams are both opponents and cooperants. This arrangement is truly unique and powerful. The second is the Chairman's Award. Even if teams don't win, many still make an effort. And it creates a social norm that even non submitting teams follow.

So FIRST needs to consider its incentives in moving forward in redesigning the championships. Unfortunately, I don't always see that elements of FIRST (e.g., the GDC) really think through the incentives. This year's game is exhibit A. I'm concerned that championsplit is Exhibit B.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

MN has nearly 200 teams this year, more than the 156 Varsity HS Hockey teams (hockey is very big in MN). Note that MN has more FRC participation per capita than any other state, I believe, so CA and MI have some catching up to do to get where MN is.

I think there is a ton of FRC growth potential, even within MN, especially for more rural school districts-- although FTC may be more appropriate-- that's growing as well.

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.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."

And Kamen's underlying insight to this was that our culture currently celebrates sports success and young people dream of being professional athletes, so let's use that same approach to celebrate something more useful.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I agree with everything about history and how FIRST is about inspiration and recognition.

And I can see both sides to the argument, but I have had a personal impact with the effectiveness of the single championship.

Our team has been lucky enough to make worlds 3 out of 4 years, and as a rising senior I have attended two champs myself. And what champs did for me was that it gave me an entire new level of inspiration, whether watching Einstein or creeping on 254s pit. But competing and seeing the high level of robots and competition furthered my inspiration for the powers of science and tech. Likewise, at worlds this year I saw the same looks of inspiration from a few freshman, and seeing the concentrated best of FRC made them recognize the same thing I did.

On the other hand FIRST knows what they are doing and bringing in more teams would allow this to impact more teams. But having a split of the teams won't have the same impact it may have a net overall higher impact.

We will just have to wait and see. Thanks for all the opinions. I will share these with the team. I think it's a good topic to mull over.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

But do we have to do it exactly like them? We have a competition and I think playing with the structure is a valid way to try to achieve our goals. Also our goals don't usually align with most other sports so I can see us not using the exact same system.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Maybe we could. Why fix it if it is already working fantastically well??? Or are you saying FIRST is currently doing a subpar job?




For all those "It's not about the robot" points, an interesting analogy that I have been thinking about is as follows:

FIRST isn't about the robot, it's about the destination.

Traveling isn't about the plane/car/train you take, it's where you end up that matters.

Robots are like your car, they get you to where you want to be. While ultimately the way you get to your destination matters little, you would be silly to say that the way that it does it is irrelevant.

You would rather drive a Lamborghini than a Dodge Caravan.

You would rather have a competition that recognizes those that deserve recognition.

Doesn't matter how I look at it, but owning a Lamborghini will always be more inspiring than owning 100 dodge caravans.

Doesn't matter how I look at it, but going to an event where the entire world comes to compete, will always be more inspiring than going to 100 events where only some of the teams compete under the same roof.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Doubt we will get to 100 different champs or even 10...

Dodge caravans have gotten our robots to several events in a pinch. But when we go to a big and or out of state competition and one of our sponsors loans us a Mercedes Sprinter it's much better. The dodge does the job but upgrading to the Sprinter is more optimal. Engineers optimize and prioritize all the time and so should FIRST. Deal with the trade offs and leverage the benefits.

I don't think FIRST has done a bad job in the past but this system was designed with future challenges in mind, a good feature for any system.

Other sports teams and organizations don't serve the same purpose and subsequently neither do their competition structures. It can and has worked but we can still make it our own.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I would rather move my apartment in a Dodge Caravan than a Lamborghini. I wouldn't take a plane to get across town for work each day (though it might be preferable to Houston traffic). Owning a Lambo isn't inspiring if you end up over your head in debt.

You're right when you say that how you get there matters, but your goal informs your choice of vehicle. Think about that carefully, and ask yourself: What IS the destination, and what is the best way to get there? Not how would you LIKE to get there; What is the BEST way?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I don't think many people in this discussion have yet realized that the two sides are so far apart (and viewing things from such extremely different directions) that they aren't even having the same argument.

Unrelated to the above point... By putting less focus on competition (which is a direction of thinking this decision indicates) you alienate a portion of the community. This portion is the one doing most of the high level inspiration and training of the community, and losing even a percentage of them will have trickle down affects that lower the quality of all teams.

Sure, moving to a two champs format (more of a convention/festival) you make all the teams that are nerd clubs happier... but nerd clubs don't really change the culture (yes, you all have anecdotal examples). Most of the population has no desire to join a nerd club. It's easy to get high and mighty and look down on them for not seeing things "our way", but the organization needs to realize that we need to bring in more outsides, and to do so we need to get away from being nerd clubs.

The general public wants competition and excitement. There is no reason an increase in competition has to lead to a decrease in sportsmanship (aka GP). By hinting that GP can only be maintained with competition being sub-servant sends the message to students that they can't be competitive AND have GP.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Do you value that more or less than having one champion?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

It goes hand in hand.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

In Michigan we have a similar format to two championships for FLL. Both teams address themselves as state Champs. And the only problem is the fact that only one team goes to the FIRST Championship. It doesn't make the competition any less competitive.

Also Imagine years down the road when there is a North North American Championship, a South South American Championship, a European Championship, a South American Championship, an East Asian Championship, a Pacific Championship, And a North African Championship. Then we will have a need for a "World Championship" but having more competitions doesn't take away from a competitive nature it only allows more people to be exposed to FIRST and encourage growth in STEM fields.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

The intent was that for me personally, I could attend 100 events that don't have the entire world there, or one world event, and I would chose the world event every time. Even if it was competing at 100, and going to watch the 1.

You are missing the forest, because you are too busy thinking about how bad that one dead tree looks.

Of course there are a hundred thousand variables that in real life determine if it makes sense for you to buy a "Lamborghini". You would be in some serious debt if you bought 100 Dodge Caravans as well. :rolleyes:

Correct, but we already know which one is more inspiring. It's a no brainer. It's the Lambo. We are talking about inspiration and recognition. To me, a lambo is blatantly obvious that it fits those two criteria better even if you have 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000 dodge caravans (or any average car of your choosing) the lambo is more inspiring. This seems blatantly true for one world event as well. You can add as many "sorta" world events as you want. None of them will touch the inspiration that happens with a true world event.

Unfortunately this has been the case for a long time now.

Exactly. There are many real life examples of this.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

To steal the conclusion from the Mentor-Driven vs Student-Driven Team debate:

It depends on what works best for your team. YMMV.
It is my opinion that HQ is trying to find a solution that works the best for the most teams.
Some may feel alienated; some may disagree with aspects of the proposed solution; some may have 'better' ideas. But HQ is trying to work toward (what it believes is) the greater good, and I can respect that.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Those are two different tasks. How is the competition structure related to community enrichment other than the fact of their being a competition is why you may have started doing that work? Are you saying that splitting championships thus prevents that sort of work?

It comes across like anything not directly related to the competition being valuable to you is solely dependent on winning and how important the victory is. I wouldn't think that would be the case.


And why can't the two, not 100, and not ten world events both be valuable on their own? Your answer is lack of one champion and that's not enough to devalue the events significantly for most people.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

"Nerd club"?

Yes, I agree. It certainly is easy to get high and mighty, and to look down on others for not seeing things your way.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

My emphasis added:
Which is more inspiring, owning any lamborghini, or:

Owning your own fleet (100 caravans) of new app based taxis which move make about 1,000,00 person to place trips per year (1.5 passengers per average trip x 100 vehicles x 20 fairs per day x 330 days per year of vehicle usage (assuming 35 days of downtime for general maintenance). http://www.boston-cabs.com/2009/01/t...n-service.html

Owning a grocery/meals deliver company that assist 5,000 people get fresh meals/groceries each year (assuming 1 vehicle could service about 50 unique customers per week per vehicle) making 250,000 deliveries and facilitating 100 new jobs... http://www.peapod.com/

Or having a fleet of 100 Minivans testing protype battery management system: http://www.allpar.com/corporate/electric-cars.html

Or a fleet of minivans that are retrofitted to include side ramps so they are wheelchair accessible: http://www.braunability.com/commerci...e-minivan.html

I am picking on you a bit, but I was inspired by the Lamborghini when I was in elementary school. I specifically remember coveting a poster of this image: http://kleberly.com/284146-lamborghini-countach.html up until I was about 10 years old. I never did get one.

**************************************

The above examples are not just pulled from thin air...
I was personally was inspired by the Dodge minivan as it was a neat vehicle taking me to and from school, games, and 4-H events through out my life. Cubby holes, flip down seats, interesting over-center cam link for the rear windows... I must have played with that over center linkage 1,000 times as a kid.
Around 13 years old, we were in a high speed rear-ending on a freeway, and it not only saved our lives, but we were able to fix that van and I used it in College.
During college, my first internship was working at Braun Corporation which retrofitted minivans with a new floor and fold down ramp for wheel-chairs. They owner had MS and even had his converted so he could drive with a joystick similar to his wheelchair. It was a small engineering department, but they did very inspirational work.

My second internship was with Chrysler, a friend also interning at chrysler was part of the TEV program where Chrysler was experimenting with Electric Minivans durin the 90s and did do some Zero-emission fleetwork. I was inspired by this experience to take an electric vehicles course during my master's program.

While working at Chrysler, I worked in advanced vehicle engineering on some fold flat seat concepts, and got a patent for a multifunction liftgate (again inspired by minivans).

I later went on to work on Challenger and Viper. (Just stating this so you know that I too like performance cars).

Also in the early 2000s, my grandmother lost her personal mobility. She was able to get in and out of my mom's minivan, and really appreciated the support from the "meals on wheels" people that helped her live comfortably in her own home without having to "get out" too much.

Around 2007 or 2008, I was at a really neat vintage car show where I got the chance to finally see a Lamborghini Coontach (LP-400s) in person. It looked short, wide, and had 14" wheels. Its 0-60 was 5.9 seconds and it was $100,000 1985 dollars. By 2005, I could by an SRT4 that had a faster 0-60 for $19,900 2005 dollars...

As just one other point. I would be willing to bet that Chrysler sponsors more FRC teams than Lamborghini, and the money for that sponsorship is largely due to the profits of one of the companies best money makers (mini-van).

It was a neat car, but to be very clear, had nowhere near the impact or inspiration that any one of the above dodge Caravans had on me, not too mention the collective impact that those less than 100 had on me or the other people I have mentioned.

I clearly look at things a little different than you, but I am pretty partial to minivans. Even now, I work on the tracked military minivan... though I would never call it that in front of the soldiers... Its infotainment and gaming system is a little too dangerous to play around with.

I am not saying that the Lamborghini should not be inspiring (I prefer Viper), just maybe you might want to look a little harder about what inspiration 100 minivans could provide. ...Your Mileage May Vary...

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

When you read what I wrote, you will see that I said "an event where the entire world competes" Not "I want a overall winner"

Speaking of which, why is "you want one true winner" even an argument anymore? Haven't we long established that FIRST is looking into ways where a one true winner can be found? (Getting winners from both champs to play eachother?)

Like. Ugh.... Let's give up on that one.

You do have a point. Informed individuals may have different opinions once they are informed. But the public isn't informed. I can say with very high confidence an uninformed person is more likely to be inspired by a big competition where the whole world goes to, rather than a competition where a part of the world goes to.

And then there are the people who think or pretend they are informed and know what they are talking about, but actually have no clue.

The majority of the population is the uninformed or the "pseudo-informed" These are the people we care about changing the program to inspire, not the ones who are already super informed and hooked.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Why is this a comparison that has to be made?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Because you linked the two here

You're implying that:

1. This split alienates a portion of the community here: "Unrelated to the above point... By putting less focus on competition (which is a direction of thinking this decision indicates) you alienate a portion of the community."

2. That this is enough to have those teams quit (here: "and losing even a percentage of them") and stop doing the "inspiration and training of the community".

So I'll ask, would you rather continue inspiring and training the community or leave (as you imply by saying: "losing even a percentage of them") because you cannot have one champion/championship and can no longer be the "one true champion"?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

You're reading pretty far into what I said.

I don't think you'll see many people leave. However, you will see many that are less motivated than in the past (unfortunately, this is impossible to measure).

You asked me to value one over the other. Why do I have to? Why can't the both be very important to me?

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Of all of my qualms with the championsplit, this is the biggest one. Many of the greatest mentors of the greatest teams are upset about the championsplit. That should scare everyone.

Any organization that alienates the top 1% of its contributors will not last long. My greatest fear is that the championsplit decision is indicative of more decisions like this to come which will push away the most important people in FRC. If I see that happening, I'm out, plain and simple. I have no interest in being part of an organization which does not value its most important members.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Some people are still pointing to "want one true winner" as a significant negative to the switch, granted that you didn't mention it there.

And there are so many other events to show uninformed people what we are about. At that stage few people actually care about the winners and awards and things they know nothing about. They are just amazed that this is something high school students do and that there are international teams at all.

I've had people interested by showing them the robot or even just talking to them. You don't need one big event to pull people in you need a year round multifaceted effort across many areas. And yes there is something spectacular to the energy of an event especially a world championship but do you still not come away from your regional tired with no voice covered in WD-40, red'n tacky grease, and buttons? I still think it's amazing we do that at all and so do a lot of new people. I'd hate to be a part of an organization that valued winning over that.

Because you suggested that the split championship would cause lack of motivation to help others. So do you value that work more than what you lose from splitting championships which does not directly affect said work? If you do than you won't quit. If what is lost by splitting championships is more important than you may. It's an old fashion cost/benefit analysis.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Most of what I'd say in response to this discussion I've already said in my post about why we care about the competition aspect of FRC but I thought I'd add in a bit more.

People care about winning. They want to be the best. I'd argue it's a natural instinct that came out of the desire to survive. Whatever it is, that desire to be the best drives people to do more than they'd ever do otherwise. It drives innovation to happen faster than it would ever happen otherwise. In FRC it creates the very top teams.

Instead of trying to work against that view, why can't FIRST use it to their advantage? Use the fact that people are competitive to bring the program farther than it would ever go otherwise. They've been doing it for a long time--it's what sets FIRST apart from most other STEM programs.

I'm going to ask you something: if aiming for the top is what has been pushing teams on, and what has created the powerhouse teams, do we want to lose that?

FRC as a program will go on without them. Even if (and I don't believe this will happen, but just imagine) the top 10 or 20 teams suddenly disappeared, the program isn't going to just collapse. But FRC as we know it will not be the same, and not in a good way.

So much of the awe, inspiration, and "how is that even possible?" I felt this year came from watching the top teams. Staying up to watch 148's reveal over and over (and it came out at like 11pm), reloading CD until 254 posted their reveal, looking through all the pictures and videos of 1114 my friends and I could find to try and figure out how their robot worked, watching the webcasts as 2056 won their 22nd regional in a row, plotting data to see how high an OPR of 158 really is, talking to various teams at champs, watching the matches on Einstein...if these experiences were possible because of the desire to be the top--and some teams getting there--is that bad?

I'll be a senior when the split champs is implemented. The rookies who join that year will not experience a single championship as a student. Do I think FRC will drastically change in 2017 just because of that change? Yes and no. I don't think everyone is suddenly going to stop trying to do their best. But I do think something will change. At the very least we won't be seeing those final matches played out in front of everyone at champs, and I think the changes go deeper than that. They may not know what is missing, I may not know what is missing--we may never know exactly what we've lost. I can imagine, but will never know, what it's like to have champs without divisions, and I think this is a larger change than that.

Losing the top to benefit the bottom isn't a trade we should be looking at, not when there's a way to help everyone. I'll say it again: 2021, districts > DCMPs or super regionals > single champs. Both levels of inspiration, less traveling for a larger competition, less expensive per competition, more sustainable, etc.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Adam mentioned this earlier, but I'd like to reiterate that those top 1% of teams do a pretty significant amount of behind the scenes work to help FRC function the way it does. From key volunteer positions to helping start new teams, I'd argue that FIRST is shooting themselves in the foot if they think they can get away with demotivating their elite.

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

Since some of the top 1% also helps run local organizations and events, you don't have to worry about needing new teams or KVs when there are no events to go to!

Re: ChampionSplit: A Historical Perspective
 

I would instead say that FIRST Board of Directors is removing the current source of motivation that pushes many teams ("elite" and "non-elite") forward.

Teams have the choice to re-establish this source of motivation and teams have the volunteer capacity to make it happen by 2017.

-Mike