![]() |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
The 2 event championship was definitely not my preference, but I think it is/was probably the lesser of several evils. I am generally in the same boat from the alternative 2 event proposals. Not terribly for or against any of them. I was happy in this blog that they will be discussing with teams possible events mixing strategies. This was actually my biggest concern with the rollout was that there were not be an allowance for mixing. I think Hall of Fame teams should probably get to rotate events. Same with "founders". though I would like if they could keep them at a reasonable balance (no more than a 1/3 to 2/3 ratio). I have hope that they will do a summer event, and work with teams to find a way to make that work well. I have thoughts on how they could do that, and will see if some of those can be implemented. |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
I think it's great that FIRST has tried to survey teams, and I thank them for that. But I would like to point out that two championships will completely ruin the prestige of going to champs. This happens in two ways, one, the obvious way, when you get an award at half champs, it's not really winning the award, it's sharing the award. If FIRST really trying to be a sport for the mind, it can't say it has a superbowl because there are two trophies. How are winners going to explain what happened? "oh our robot's the half best in the world"? How can we make it loud when we aren't sure what we are. Are there any winners in two champs? Or just two finalists?
The second way prestige would be affected is qualifying. I have gone to champs twice, and no matter how we did it was really inspirational for me. I have to commend FIRST, that organization that we still all know and love, for adhering to its mission statement and inspiring twice the amount of people. It's great that FIRST is growing and that it is accomodating for its growth. But with more teams qualifying for worlds through regional points, what is the drive going to be to build the best robot, or make it loud to the world? Why go for prestigious positions such as regional robot winner our chairman's winner? Why not just actually care about the safety award a few times and make it to half champs? In the end, we're actually uninspiring teams and people. I really like FIRST and I love everything it has done for me, my FLL kids, everyone involved, but I don't want to see this awesome organization ruined because it can't scale up properly. I want to be able to come back and be proud that I had the opportunity to graduate from an amazing program. Two champs will definitely uninspire more people than it will inspire. No one wants to say that they are half winners. And again, I have to applaud FIRST for their efforts to get feedback from teams. |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
My feedback for Frank and FIRST:
1. Students are the main stakeholders. If trade-offs are needed, articulate the pros and cons factually and consult them. (just like the patient/doctor relationship.) 2. Surveys are imperfect. But I can generally count on those who care to cast their ballots. There is nothing wrong with building a strategy based on the opinions of those who care. |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
So of the two actual single trophies, there has been a TON of conversation about expanding these anyway. There are hundreds of really awesome teams and really awesome people who deserve to be recognized at the worldwide level, but only one of each per year is not enough. Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Transitions are always difficult. The USA never quite converted to the metric system. . . .
Ultimately, if we saturate the season with districts (even that is contentious), then district champs would be the primary players at world champs. The remaining participants would be up for discussion: HOF, Rookie, Chairmans, etc. . . . Would we than go back to a smaller single championship event? |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
While I don't know what the answers to those questions are, the reasoning and logic behind the championsplit, to me, indicates that FIRST is trying to bring the experience by having more championship-scale events. It's entirely possible we go from here to 4 super regionals, and not have a culminating championship event. At least that's what I see is in the realm of possibilities, following the logic of this decision. |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
I agree that the poll shows that, of those responding, there's more negative than positive feedback.
That said, it's possible that there's no solution that makes most teams happy. Here's a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the concept. Frank discussed 22 "product attributes" ("elements of the championship experience"). Let's imagine a universe where FRC teams have decisive product attributes distributed in this way*: 33% - (1) Seeing and competing with the teams with the best robots in FRC 33% - (2) The experience of attending a major, multi-day event with my team 33% - (3) Keeping attendance costs reasonable Now suppose you created three ideas for Champs experiences, each of which optimized for one of these attributes. Say along these lines**: (1) Single WW Champs (2) Super Regional Champs (3) State Champs If you polled any one of these using a "do you support this" question, you'd see the same or worse results than the poll that was conducted. So put yourselves in FIRST's shoes. You need to select the choice that is best aligned with FIRST's goals, and is realistic about the resources that you have available. You are solving a unique problem -- you run one of the largest HS activity championships in the US***. Any of your choices will make a decent sized set of teams unhappy. *I selected these items because they seemed to be mostly non-overlapping attributes and seem somewhat representative of the points of view I've read. Please don't take this as my reading of what teams actually think or that the percentages are anything but a hypothetical. What will you do? **These actually map to the three models used in other HS activities in the US, based on the research I did last week. ***I think it's actually the largest, but haven't been looking at data for long enough to say for certain. |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
I would "strongly agree" that the current one championship model is unsustainable over the long term. But that doesn't mean that I "strongly favor" two championships. I'd jump off the fence for a single championship if the "championship experience" could be replicated one qualifying step below (i.e. at district championships or super-regional type events). But I would be just as supportive of two championships if there was a viable way of bringing the two winning alliances together to crown one true champion. (BTW I don't think the costs of such an event are insurmountable...aside from possible financial sponsorships, raising the entry fee for the 800 teams at the two championships by just 2% would raise $80k that could cover/defray additional travel and event expenses). |
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:47. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi