Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

Sorry, fixed. Apparently you can't link directly to attachments from other posts. It's in the linked post.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

Yeah, that would be really cool, I think many would watch and it'd be really easy to market that to non-firsters as well

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

8 teams, potentially from very different parts of the world, are going to travel all the way to New Hampshire/Detroit/wherever, to potentially play two (at most three) 2.5 minute matches?

2 of the teams may never play either.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

I was doing exactly what I stated in my post, asking other district participants how they felt about their DCMP as it relates to the championship experience, and stating my feeling that the MAR DCMP does not replicate that experience. Please assume no larger agenda in my posts.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

If the event was at next years kickoff, and it was at no financial cost to attend (championship win = all expense trip paid to New Hampshire), then I think that would be reasonable.

In my humble opinion, there does not need to be a singular championship alliance. Winning a 400 team event is prestigious in and of itself.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

It would be better to have the division winners from both events attend. Then they could hold it as a 1-day event like the MN State Tournament - quals in the morning until about 1, then alliance selections, a break for lunch, and elims. You would have 32 teams there, and the eventual winning alliance may have teams from both events on it, which I think would be rather cool. It could also easily fit into a single weekend, not requiring much, if any, time off work or School for people. Of course, the problem with this is still travel costs... Having a team from China, Brazil, or Israel (for example) have to return to the US for yet another event could be prohibitive. Even closer team's may find the cost to be too much, traveling from Michigan, Texas, California, etc to Manchester or whatever the event would be held.

For something like this to work, I think FIRST would have to pick up a significant portion of the tab. No registration fee, secure hotel and flight accommodations for a certain number from each team (10? 4 drive team members, plus 4 pit students and 2 mentor/chaperones). Without doing something like that, I can easily see teams deciding to skip the event and call it a year.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

Yes, but do you think MARCMP could get to that level?
I've only ever attended one DCMP, and that was the 2014 NEDCMP as a spectator.
It was a fantastic and huge event. It definitely felt bigger and better than a regional event to me, and I felt like with some work and publicity, it could definitely replicate a championship experience.

But I've never participated on a team, because New York is taking forever to get to districts.

So do you (and others who have participated in DCMP's) believe that your DCMP can replicate a championship experience, or could with work?

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

Yes, there are logistical issues associated with bringing the two alliances together for a summer final final. While I think that some of those issues could be resolved, I'd also like to bump an alternative idea...fly the alliance that wins the Houston championship event into St. Louis/Detroit the following weekend, and have the battle of champions take place during that second event's closing ceremonies.

Some potentially favorable aspects of this idea (to chew on or chew over)...

- Automatically cuts the travel costs for the winning alliances in half (since one alliance is already on site).

- It also limits the additional costs of staging that battle of champions (field/volunteers/FIRST staff/other infrastructure already on site).

- FIRST covers all of the travel expenses for five members on each of the four teams that win in Houston (drive team plus one). Other team members/mentors/coaches travel on team's dime. They'd have a few days to fundraise/talk with their sponsors to help defray those out-of-pocket costs.

- If an international team is on the winning Houston alliance, they stay for the week in between, with expenses covered by FIRST (including cost of changing flights home). The international teams traveling to Houston would need to be prepared for this potentiality.

- Otherwise, winning alliance flies in on Friday afternoon, limiting the number of lost school days. Bagged robots shipped from Houston directly to St. Louis/Detroit.

- Fly-in championship teams wouldn't have to move/set-up their pits...there could be well-equipped "Visiting Champions" pits waiting for them at the second championship. Pit equipment might be provided by sponsors/equipment suppliers, or loaned by other teams at the second event. Second event teams that didn't qualify for their Einsteins (or even for their subdivision playoffs) might even volunteer to "host" one of the four fly-in teams, and lend extra hands/equipment/team spirit.

- If FIRST wanted to crown a single CCA winner, they could also fly in the presenters from the team that won the Houston CA. Award the second event's CA at the start of their Einstein's, then have the two Championship CA winners make one final presentation between then and Closing Ceremonies. And maybe those final presentations could be made in front of a very distinguished panel of judges?

I'm sure that there are logistical issues that I've missed, or that I've poorly characterized at least a few of the issues that I've raised. My intent is merely to see if there's interest in discussing how this type of rapid-fire final event might work.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

The more I read about solutions to crown an ultimate champion, the more I realize how absolutely impractical it is.

Most solutions fall apart if even one team cannot attend.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

Exactly. It's just unfeasible. Furthermore, for the amount of playing time that will likely happen, with no kind of crowd to be watching and cheering, it's a lesser experience for those competing, and for everyone else that did make it to championships, we still won't get to see them live; we'll all be watching from home.

I think we'll just have to live with two winning alliances (which personally is not a large problem for me, albeit I would prefer a single winning alliance), as this kind of "final final event" solution has a lot of holes still.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

Exactly. Currently the only potential way around this I see is to stop considering it a Houston Winners vs Detroit Winners event and just says "all division winners (and finalists?) qualify for the World Championship" -- and just rerun quals and elims with the teams who attend that weekend event. Or potentially cut out quals and use a District-esque points system to generate rankings. But I'm not sure how many if any other problems with the situation this addresses besides not locking into the two alliances.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

I like living in a bubble where split champs aren't that bad. xD

Yes, all div winners qualify. One day event, few quals, repick alliances and do elims. Should have extra teams so if a few don't show its not a big deal. Not sure about finalists, adding a double the number of teams for a one day event.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

An alternative I've proposed: Stop the first event at the division winners, and take them to the second event the next week. Run full Einstein field with all of the division winners at the second event as part of the closing ceremony (which appears to be in different location than the competition site.)

Those at the second event get to see ALL of the top teams, and by alternating dates, each location gets to see ALL of the top teams every other year, and they get to see at least the 50% of the top teams every year.

There will advantages and disadvantages to each group of alliances but that already happens to a certain extent through random (vs seeded) assignment to divisions and random (vs seeded) qualifying scheduling.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

I'm with Gregor on this-- every solution I've seen has been either inpractical or contrary to many of the goals FIRST or the posters in this thread have been advocating, or both. We're talking about FIRST footing what is likely a six-seven figure bill, causing students to miss school, and/or depriving one of our championships from seeing a champion crowned.

I really, really wish there was a better solution out there, but at the end of the day, it might be that the best we can do is try to make sure as many of us as possible are in Districts by the time these venue contracts are up.

Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
 

I really like this idea.